Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sudan

Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Darfur, Sudan.

Hilary Benn: Some 1.8 million people have been forced to flee their homes in Darfur and just under 3.5 million are now dependent on humanitarian assistance. Although the latest United Nations mortality survey shows that the number of deaths has decreased significantly since last year, banditry and the recent increase in violence are a cause of considerable concern. In southern Sudan, malnutrition levels are, in places, as bad as in Darfur. The situation should improve after the anticipated good harvest, but there will still be areas where food is insufficient. People are now returning home to the south, but the humanitarian and development needs there are enormous.

Tom Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. He will be aware that African Union troops will be key to ensuring that humanitarian aid arrives. He will also know that two soldiers were recently killed and 36 were kidnapped, most of whom have recently been released. On 22 October, 7,700 AU troops should be there on the ground. Does the Secretary of State believe that they will be, does he consider that a sufficient number, and what does he think the UK can do to help?

Hilary Benn: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the incidents that occurred over the weekend. There are currently 6,300 AU troops in the region, and the AU is still working to get 7,700 there by the end-of-October deadline. What happens depends very much on whether the recent upsurge in violence continues. We have to be very clear in identifying the perpetrators, and then passing their names to the sanctions committee and the International Criminal Court. We are pressing for the arms embargo to be extended to the whole of Sudan, and there is also the very practical issue of armoured personnel carriers. When I visited Sudan in June, the AU said that it wanted APCs to enable it to protect its troops. The Government of Sudan are currently putting obstacles in the way of those APCs getting in—an issue that my noble Friend Lord Triesman raised when he was there last week. They must now remove those obstacles, so that the AU troops have the equipment and the support that they need to carry on the good job that they have been doing in protecting people in Darfur since they arrived about a year ago.

Bill Olner: Food is being used as a weapon against ordinary people in Darfur. Are we going to be a little more robust in ensuring that it gets to the people who really need it?

Hilary Benn: There is indeed a huge humanitarian challenge. The humanitarian situation has improved for those in the camps, and my principal concern is the situation in southern Sudan. Between 250,000 and 500,000 people have already come home, and now that the dry season is arriving we expect a further 500,000 to move south. My visit to Rumbek in June made it clear that there is very little there to receive them. That is why we have given funding to the UN specifically for the south, and we are also running water, health and nutrition projects through non-governmental organisations. Moreover, we have put £10 million into a fund to enable the new Government of southern Sudan to start providing for the people, who are going home now that there is peace between the north and the south.

Tobias Ellwood: The Secretary of State has spoken about the military commitment in Darfur, and in discussing Africa after the G8 summit, Sudan clearly comes very high on the list of priorities. Our current military commitment consists of only 17 personnel, 15 of whom are in a NATO camp helping the NGOs, and two of whom are in a rival European Union camp. Will the Secretary of State work more closely with the Defence Secretary to co-ordinate our efforts? There is no point in the NGOs and our relief workers going out there if they do not have protection, or—worse still—if our military operations are actually working against each other.

Hilary Benn: While the hon. Gentleman is right about the number of personnel in the region, the UK has so far committed, as he will doubtless be the first to recognise, £32 million in support of the AU operation. That shows just how serious we are about ensuring that it has the resources and technical assistance that it needs, and I pay tribute to the British service personnel there. The practical concerns that the AU faces are ensuring that it has the right equipment, the right number of troops and the means to protect them. I will of course continue to talk to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary about this issue, but the AU troops have undoubtedly been making a real difference on the ground, as was pointed out to me when I was in the region in June. However, we are very worried about what has happened in the past month.

Chris Mullin: Is it my right hon. Friend's impression that the situation in Darfur is getting better, or deteriorating? Does he believe that the AU force is as effective as it should be, should we be thinking of making the mandate tougher, and is he satisfied that the Sudanese Liberation Army and the other groups in rebellion against the Khartoum regime are pulling their weight in trying to achieve peace in Darfur?

Hilary Benn: On my hon. Friend's last point, no, I do not think that they are pulling their weight. Indeed, until relatively recently, those principally responsible for the deterioration in the security situation have been the SLA and JEM—the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement—which, it is thought, were behind the kidnap of the African Union troops that have now been released. I think that there is a certain amount of jockeying for position going on while the Abuja peace talks are restarting.
	As far as the mandate is concerned, it is currently somewhere between a chapter 6 and a chapter 7 mandate, and it is for the AU itself to determine what the mandate will be. When I spoke to the AU commanders there in June, it was clear that they were prepared to be flexible about how they worked, but they wanted to ensure that they had adequate protection.

Andrew George: The right hon. Gentleman's Department is contributing £100 million to the Darfur region, but when he compares that with the £5 billion—£1.5 billion a year—that the Government are committing to the military operation in Iraq, and the $10.5 billion spent on reconstruction there, does he believe that sufficient priority is being given to the needs of the displaced, murdered people of Darfur?

Hilary Benn: The UK has been the second largest contributor, after the United States of America, to humanitarian assistance in Darfur, so the US and the UK are leading the rest of the world in that respect. Secondly, one also has to recognise the political effort that has been made. As the House knows, the truth is that the crisis in Darfur will be brought to an end only when the people who are currently fighting each other are prepared to use the Abuja peace talks to reach a peace agreement. If they can do that, peace can be brought to Darfur in the same way as the comprehensive peace agreement brought peace to the north and south of Sudan, where more than 2 million people were killed in a civil war that lasted a generation.

Afghanistan

Tony Baldry: If he will make a statement on his Department's progress on poppy eradication in Afghanistan.

Linda Gilroy: What recent discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts on diversifying agriculture in Afghanistan.

Hilary Benn: DFID is supporting the overall UK effort to combat poppy cultivation through providing alternative livelihoods. Working with others, we are putting in £50 million this year to support agriculture. Recent provisional UN figures suggest that there has been a 21 per cent. decline in poppy cultivation acreage in 2005. The challenge will be to sustain that reduction next year. Long-term development and the creation of a stable and secure state governed by the rule of law will be the key factors in achieving that.

Tony Baldry: I am grateful for that answer, but fatwas against farmers in Afghanistan do not seem to be making much progress, largely because of the lack of alternative livelihoods. Is it not time to consider the possibility of licensing some opium production in Afghanistan? There is a shortage of morphine and codeine, particularly in the developing world, and the benefits to Afghan farmers and the Afghan treasury of some licensed, tightly regulated opium production could be considerable.

Hilary Benn: I have seen the recently published report, which made precisely that suggestion. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Ministry of Counter Narcotics—this is the Afghan Government's response—said that while it welcomed the study, because of poor security and the risk of diversion, now is not the right time for licit poppy cultivation. I have to say that I share that view, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are funding an applied research programme to look at ways of earning an alternative living, which is what farmers require if they are not to plant poppy any more.

Linda Gilroy: I welcome the fall in opium production to which my right hon. Friend referred, but in order to sustain it, has he looked at the potential role that higher-added-value crops might play, particularly crops that might have a role in reducing environmental emissions or result in the production of ethanol?

Hilary Benn: We have not looked specifically at ethanol, but the research programme to which I referred in answering the previous question will examine all the available options. So far, we have provided 30,000 farmers with seeds, fertilisers and samplings and there are alternatives such as apricot drying, keeping poultry, fruit trees and vegetable production, which farmers could enter into. The House needs to recognise that the opium economy in Afghanistan is estimated to be worth $2.8 billion a year—60 per cent. of the legal gross domestic product.
	Experience from elsewhere tells us that it will take time, effective interdiction, enforcement of the law, the establishment of economic development and success in giving people alternative ways of earning a living to really crack this problem. That is a long-term challenge.

Robert Key: When the Secretary of State and his colleagues are faced with long-term humanitarian crises such as have arisen in Afghanistan and Darfur, as well as short-term crises such as the one following the earthquake in south Asia, who in the Government co-ordinates and prioritises the efforts made by different Departments? I get the impression that the Ministry of Defence is taking on quite a lot of the work that used to be done by the Foreign Office.

Hilary Benn: There is very close co-ordination between those ministerial colleagues, especially in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my Department and the Ministry of Defence, who have responsibility for the work that we are doing in Afghanistan. We see the product of that in the effort that we are making across the piece in Afghanistan, Darfur and Pakistan. We are doing a great deal to help in Pakistan, and will do more.

Andy Reed: My right hon. Friend is right about the scale of the problem posed to this country by Afghanistan. What measures is he taking to bring about an enormous step change in our efforts, and is there a role for co-operatives in Afghanistan? Those organisations could bring together many farmers to work in a collective rather than an individual way to achieve diversification.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend's suggestion about co-operatives is extremely good. One practical example of the significant increase in the effort being made by this Government is our support for the alternative livelihoods that we have just been discussing. Two years ago, we gave £6 million a year to support that diversification, but this year we are giving £50 million. That very significant increase recognises the importance of alternative livelihoods in improving the lot of farmers.

Mark Simmonds: Since the Government became responsible for reducing opium production, the levels of cultivation in Afghanistan have escalated dramatically. Finding solutions to arrest that country's decline into a narco state is essential, as 90 per cent. of the heroin in the UK originates there. As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, the solution is multifaceted, but little progress has been made on the matter of informal credit. Farmers are burdened by loans with extortionate interest, and daughters are often used to pay creditors when debts become unserviceable. What strategies is the Department implementing to assist with credit repayment, debt relief and access to microfinance schemes?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. So far, we have supported making microfinance available to 20,000 clients. We have taken the lead in the establishment of a counter-narcotics trust fund, to which we are contributing £20 million. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a very significant problem faced by farmers, which is that, when they get into debt, they are bound to the drug traders. I have given some examples of what we are doing already, but we have to find ways to ensure that they can get out of that bind and begin planting alternative crops. However, that must be combined with effective enforcement of the law, and the 21 per cent. reduction in the acreage planted is principally the result of the efforts made by the Afghans themselves. President Karzai and the governors have told farmers that they should not plant heroin, and I hope that we can sustain that initiative.

Jim Sheridan: What practical assistance are our armed forces in Afghanistan offering in eradicating the evil drug trade there, which affects all our communities?

Hilary Benn: The most practical contribution is to improve security. With improved security and an increased capacity on the part of the Afghanistan Government to deliver for their poor will come a better chance to deal with the problems of what is, indeed, a narco state. Everyone recognises that. When I visited Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan earlier this year, I had the chance to see the work of the provincial teams. That work is undoubtedly making a difference, but the effort has to be a joint one. In the end, the Government of Afghanistan must lead that effort, and we will continue to help them.

Southern Africa

Stephen Crabb: If he will make a statement on the food situation in southern Africa.

Hilary Benn: Over 10 million people could face food shortages in the next six months in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. The most serious problems are in Zimbabwe and Malawi. In Zimbabwe, between 3 million and 5 million people are affected by the food crisis as well as the forced clearance of homes by the Government. In Malawi, more than 4 million people face food shortages as a result of a drought and poor harvest. The UK has responded quickly and already provided £57 million pounds through the UN, other agencies and some of the Governments in the region.

Stephen Crabb: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and am reassured by it. As he said, the food situation in southern Africa is critical this year with the failure of the harvest. Despite everything else that has been filling his in-tray recently, will he please do everything in his power to keep the problems of southern Africa in the world's view over the coming weeks and months? It is vital that real action be taken to address the consequences of the failure of the harvest in the region this year.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words and I can assure him that we will do so. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just returned from a visit to Malawi and Zambia to see for himself the work that we are doing. In Malawi, there has been a lot of recent attention on the emergence of the food crisis. We have been working since earlier this year and because of the strong relationship between Britain, as the leading donor in the country, and the Government of Malawi, arrangements are reasonably in hand to ensure that people do not starve. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do more as required to save people's lives.

Sally Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the food crisis in southern Africa is made worse by the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS? What is the Department doing to help meet those particular needs, especially the needs of HIV/AIDS orphans? How are we making sure that money provided to that group reaches community-based groups that provide feeding schemes for those vulnerable children?

Hilary Benn: We are currently working up a programme with UNICEF to provide support in the fight against HIV/AIDS across the region. The crisis is the consequence of climatic change—we now seem to have one severe drought every 10 years—AIDS, which means that people are less able to cope, rising unemployment and population growth. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have recently doubled our contribution to the global fund and we have done a great deal of work this year to make sure that, having put the money in to fight AIDS, it actually works effectively on the ground to bring help, including treatment to those who need it. There are now a number of people in Malawi, for example, who are getting antiretrovirals, which was not the case when I last visited there four years ago.

Gregory Campbell: Much good work continues to be done by relief agencies in Africa, but what are the Government doing to establish further action against those who are engaged in fraud and corruption, particularly the actions of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe?

Hilary Benn: The governance of Robert Mugabe over the last 25 years has turned Zimbabwe from the food basket of Africa into a country that is no longer able to feed its own population. We are providing support through the world food programme and we are running an HIV/AIDS programme in Zimbabwe to help those who are affected. That is not helped when countries send in tents to house the people who have had their homes demolished and the Government of Zimbabwe then rip down those tents and say that they will not accept any more tents for people who have nowhere to live.

Tom Clarke: At the forthcoming trade talks in Hong Kong, will my right hon. Friend seek to influence discussion on transparency about the common agricultural policy and other trading organisations so that some of Africa's poorest farmers do not have to face some of the most awkward and unacceptable trade barriers?

Hilary Benn: I can assure my right hon. Friend that that is what we will do. In the long term, fairer trade and opening up our markets to give African farmers the chance to earn and trade their way out of poverty is the key to their having a better life. The current world trade rules make it difficult for them to do that, but there are also other issues such as infrastructure. A number of the countries concerned are landlocked, and improving the infrastructure would bring down the costs of transport and of fertiliser for poor farmers and would help people earn a better living.

Andrew Mitchell: Clearly, the Secretary of State deserves considerable credit for the initiatives that he has taken on the southern African food crisis. But does he feel that he is getting inadequate support from other European countries and other members of the G8? Does he accept that following the food crisis throughout Africa, including in Niger and Darfur—the UN recently reported that up to 4 million people are in danger of starvation there—an effective early warning system, co-ordinated international responses and prevention, rather than last-minute desperate reactions prompted by TV footage, are what is needed?

Hilary Benn: I do indeed agree. We need a UN system that has the capacity to respond straight away, which is why I have been a strong advocate of a humanitarian fund. We now have six countries prepared to contribute $150 million next year to give the UN that capacity. In relation to the food crisis in southern Africa, early warning has helped us to prepare, but the other issue that we must address is dealing with the problem in the long term. Repeated food aid does not break the cycle of destitution, so we are also exploring safety net schemes. We will give people a bit of money, most of which they will spend on food, but if they can save a bit to buy assets—such as the plough that they had to sell because they were so poor—we may be able to help people out of the pit in which they find themselves.

Swaziland

Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on support from his Department for projects in Swaziland.

Gareth Thomas: We are supporting one project in Swaziland that assists with improving water and sanitation services to poor rural communities. In addition, we support two HIV/AIDS regional initiatives that operate in Swaziland. The first is with the Southern African Development Community and the second with Action Aid. Their work focuses on sexually transmitted disease treatment, condom promotion and behaviour change, and includes strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Health in Swaziland.

Mike Gapes: The situation in Swaziland is desperate. There is a massive drought, the average life expectancy for men is 32, and 43 per cent. of women attending maternity clinics are HIV positive. Three weeks ago, a delegation of Members of Parliament saw the present problems, but the changes to the EU sugar regime could make the problem even worse, because Swaziland is not defined as a less-developed country, so does not get automatic access to EU markets. What will the Government do to mitigate those problems?

Gareth Thomas: It is precisely because of the problems that my hon. Friend rightly identifies that we continue to provide support across, especially for HIV/AIDS, and from which Swaziland benefits. On the specific issue of sugar, the research that we have undertaken in our Department suggests that the Swaziland sugar industry, unlike some in other African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, has a strong future. As part of discussions on economic partnership agreements, we have called for unlimited access to EU markets for all products including sugar. Such a move will help Swaziland.

Andrew Mitchell: The Minister will be aware that Swaziland has the highest HIV/AIDS infection rate of anywhere in the world, at 36 per cent. Does he agree that it is abhorrent and deeply offensive that British aid funds are effectively being spent on building new palaces and buying exotic cars for the King of Swaziland's ever-increasing number of wives?

Gareth Thomas: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that our aid to Swaziland is not disbursed by the Government. The only direct support that we provide is in an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the Ministry of Health. Our aid is distributed through the Southern African Development Community, UN organisations and the European Union.

Papua New Guinea

Betty Williams: What recent assessment his Department has made of the incidence of HIV/AIDS in Papua New Guinea; and if he will make a statement.

Gareth Thomas: The UN estimates that HIV prevalence in Papua New Guinea is at 0.6 per cent. of the population. Australia is the major supporter of Papua New Guinea's national AIDS plan. We are working with the Government of Australia to help develop their 2005–10 strategy for Papua New Guinea in this area. We have not undertaken a separate assessment ourselves.

Betty Williams: Given that there is no DFID programme for Papua New Guinea, and that the situation is so serious there—as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association witnessed two weeks ago—can my hon. Friend ensure that the global fund is able to prioritise assistance to that country, which seems to have been forgotten by the rest of the world? What can he do to ensure that the global fund has sufficient funds to meet those needs?

Gareth Thomas: We will continue to encourage the global fund to engage with the issue of HIV/AIDS, in particular in Papua New Guinea. Currently, the fund has a $15 million programme in the country, so it is clearly engaging already. On my hon. Friend's broader question about the replenishment needs of the global fund, we hosted the replenishment conference for the fund in September, when about 29 donors pledged about $3.7 billion for the global fund—a substantial increase on the resources available until now. More needs to be done and there will be a follow-up conference next year to raise more funds.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

John Baron: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 October.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will want to join me in sending our sympathy and support to all the countries and people affected by the earthquake in south Asia. The greatest loss of life and damage appears to be in Pakistan, where tens of thousands are feared dead and millions are homeless. At the moment, we know of no British citizens among the casualties, but there will of course be many families in this country who have lost relatives or friends, and they are in our thoughts. The House will want to know that Britain is playing its full part in the international aid effort, and I am able to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will commit a further £10 million today in response to the United Nations Flash appeal and to support the wider relief effort. We will continue to respond as needs unfold.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others in addition to my duties in the House. I will have further such meetings later today.

John Baron: The Prime Minister will be aware that there is growing concern about the Government's proposed offence of inciting religious hatred, in that it could, and will, stifle our freedom of expression and is unnecessary. Will the Prime Minister allay those fears by doing something that his entire Front Bench has been unable to do so far—define the term "religion" and provide just one example of an act that would be caught by that legislation that could not be caught by existing legislation?

Tony Blair: Obviously, incitement to racial hatred is already a crime. The reason for this legislation is that the problem with incitement to religious hatred not being a crime is that there can be people against whom hatred is incited who may be of one religion but not of one ethnic grouping. That is the reason for it. If, for example, people incite hatred against Muslims, that may not be against an ethnic grouping but it is against a religious grouping. That is the reason for the introduction of the measure. I understand the concerns and it is important that we take account of them, but I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that before any prosecution is launched there will have to be the consent of the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. What this is aimed at, as with incitement to racial hatred, is not people making jokes about race, religion or anything else; it is against those who are going out to stir up divisions in our community in a way that is deeply unhelpful to community relations. Just as we obviously must take careful account of the objections that have been made, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also take account of the opposing point of view.

Mohammad Sarwar: I congratulate the Government on their swift and effective response to the devastating earthquake in south Asia. Access is still difficult to the most remote communities affected in Pakistan. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what the Government are doing to provide greater helicopter support to ensure that relief supplies reach those communities? I have spoken to many leading relief agencies working in Pakistan and they have highlighted the desperate need for mobile medical units and field hospitals with surgical facilities. What is my right hon. Friend's response to that?

Tony Blair: We are chartering helicopters and will make arrangements to get them to the affected regions so that they can help both the UN and the Red Cross. As I mentioned a moment or two ago, in addition to that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will announce a further £10 million-worth of help, on top of the £2 million already offered, in response to the UN Flash appeal. We shall continue to do everything we possibly can. Once again, let us reiterate that people in the affected area and also their relatives in this country are in our thoughts and prayers at this time.

Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in offering our profound sympathy to all those affected by the terrible disaster that has struck south Asia. It is not just a disaster for south Asia; it is a British disaster, too. Thousands of British people may have lost generations of their kith and kin, and our hearts go out to them.
	I join the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) in congratulating the Prime Minister on the speed of the British response. He will be aware that a disaster of this kind always poses real challenges in co-ordinating the aid effort. Can he tell us more about that and, in particular, about the way in which the British contribution is being co-ordinated?
	After the floods in Mozambique five years ago, concerns were expressed about the co-ordination between the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, in the past half hour in the House, similar concerns have been expressed about such co-ordination in Darfur and Afghanistan. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that there is proper communication and co-ordination of their efforts in the current emergency in south Asia?

Tony Blair: I think that I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance. There is close co-operation now between the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, the Foreign Office. We sent a team of people to co-ordinate our effort almost immediately the earthquake happened—and, by all accounts, they are doing a superb job. In addition, of course, what is important is that we give the maximum help to the UN effort. Part of our help is obviously in cash or in the provision of the tents, blankets and so on that we are sending, but part of it is also to boost their own capability on the ground. Our people have very good experience of that, and I understand, certainly from all the accounts that I have had, that they are doing an excellent job. As far as I am aware, there is no problem with co-ordination in that respect.

Michael Howard: As the Prime Ministers knows, we fully support the Secretary of State for International Development's proposals for an enlarged central emergency fund, but the fund already exists, although apparently it is not being used. The Secretary of State said this morning that the reason for that is that people are worried that it might not be replenished. Well, with great respect to the Secretary of State, that is not the most compelling answer. Can the Prime Minister tell us why that fund has not been used and what representations the British Government are making to ensure that it is used without delay?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend has just said to me that the reason that the fund has not been used is that it has been too small. That is not because of a lack of British contribution or British effort, incidentally—we are putting an immense amount of effort into UN relief around the world. However, this is obviously something that is being looked at by the UN and other Governments. I have to say that, in this instance, my understanding is that the UN is doing everything that it possibly can to help. When I spoke to the President of Pakistan over the weekend, I did not simply express our condolences—I said that we would give any additional help that we could. I think that the Pakistani Government know that all they have to do is ask and we will deliver whatever we possibly can.

Charlotte Atkins: On an important local issue, the Prime Minister will know why Staffordshire ambulance service is the best in the country. Can he assure me that its merger with poorer-performing ambulance services in the west midlands will not cost the lives of my constituents?

Tony Blair: The purpose of the review is obviously to ensure that the ambulance services work as well as they possibly can, and that includes a proposal to move to a single ambulance service for the west midlands. Obviously, we must look at all the consultations and representations that are made to us, but in the end the review is not cost driven, but efficiency driven, and we must try to ensure that we have the most effective proposal to deliver decent ambulance services to people in the midlands and elsewhere.

Charles Kennedy: Obviously, I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy that the Prime Minister and the current leader of the Conservative party have quite properly made—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Charles Kennedy: Very proper expressions have been made about the terrible events that have happened as a result of the earthquake. The statement that the Secretary of State for International Development made to the House when we reconvened was very warmly welcomed, and we pay tribute to the work that he and his officials are doing in those most difficult circumstances.
	Returning to the Prime Minister's present legislative proposals, which involve imprisonment without charge for 90 days, it seems to be absolutely clear that there is no consensus within the Government on this measure. What exactly is the view of the Attorney-General about it? Are the reports that we have read that he remains unpersuaded correct, or is this just going to be another occasion when the Attorney-General's internal views go unreported to the House?

Tony Blair: No—those views appear to have been quite extensively reported at least. There will be different views on this issue in political parties and across the House. What I have to try to do—and I am going to try to do it, if I can, in a spirit of reaching consensus on the issue—is to take the proposals that have been made by the police, lay them out before people and then have a debate about whether they are a sensible way to proceed. I have to say that, for the reasons that the police have given, I have found that their request for this power is absolutely compelling. I have to try to do my best to protect people in this country and to make sure that their safety and their civil liberty to life come first. That is what I am going to try to do.

Charles Kennedy: If the Prime Minister is serious about looking at sensible alternatives, surely he should look at the rest of his proposed legislation. The Terrorism Bill, as published, will create serious new offences and, for example, offences that we have argued for and that the Government are now supporting, such as that on acts preparatory to terrorism. That will enable suspects to be detained for the existing 14 days. In such circumstances, why does the Prime Minister remain so wedded to the proposal for 90 days? Surely it is wrong; surely he is going to have to back down.

Tony Blair: The reason that I remain wedded to that proposal is that the people who are in charge of fighting terrorism in this country—in particular, the senior police officer in charge—say, for reasons that I find personally absolutely compelling, that it is necessary to have that power to protect the public.
	It is not a matter of mystery why we are putting the proposal forward. It was originally put forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and it is now being backed by the chief police officer in charge of fighting terrorism in this country. He set out his views in a memorandum, with examples, last week. I have said that I found them compelling. Let us have a debate about the strength or otherwise of the proposals, but I believe that the case is convincing.
	The reason that the chief police officer gives is also very clear. The particular nature of this type of terrorism means that very often the police will have to arrest people relatively early in the conspiracy to cause terrorist offences. Therefore, the police will need a longer period of detention to get the evidence necessary to charge those people properly. That is the reason the police give. Rather than allegations of whether we are backing down or standing firm, we should debate the substance of the proposals, consistent, I hope, with the understanding right across the House in the aftermath of 7 July, when more than 50 people lost their lives in the terrorist attacks and consistent with our obligation to do our level best to protect the citizens of this country.

Kelvin Hopkins: Last Friday, Balfour Beatty was fined £10 million for sustained industrial negligence leading up to the Hatfield rail crash that killed four people, injured 102 and, according to Mr. Justice Mackay, had put 750,000 lives at risk. Afterwards, one of those who had suffered as a result of Hatfield said that the company had been driven by greed and profit margins, not by concern for people's lives. My right hon. Friend is apparently determined to impose this private contracting culture on the national health service. Will he think again?

Tony Blair: It is right that we should do everything we can to reduce waiting lists and waiting times, and we have done so with immense success. Let us remember that before the Government came to power, waiting lists rose by about 400,000; they have now fallen by more than 300,000. That is a result, in part, of the reforms and changes that we have put through.
	I also have to say to my hon. Friend that we have used the private sector for generations in the construction of hospitals. What we are trying to do is make sure that we get proper value for money, and that when we deliver new hospital projects they are on time and on budget. Actually, with the private finance initiative we have found that they have been.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister will not be surprised to hear that I agree with him about the use of the private sector in public services. He said a fortnight ago that every time that he had ever introduced a reform, he wished, in retrospect, that he had gone further. Who stopped him?

Tony Blair: It is always important, with any reform, that we test it very carefully, and that is what we have been doing. As a result of the reforms, I am pleased to say that we have the best school results that we have ever had. Hospital waiting lists and hospital waiting times are falling. We are reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. All that is a result of the investment and reform that were put through by this Government and opposed by the Conservative party.

Michael Howard: I asked the Prime Minister a very simple question: who stopped him from going further in his reforms? I will give him a clue—two words; three syllables. I will give him another clue. Who said that when it comes to the public services, the user of the service is "not sovereign"? So, who was it that stopped him from going further in his reforms? Why does he not come clean and tell us?

Tony Blair: The very reason we are going further is because the experiments that we have put through and the tests that we have implemented have shown that reform works. As a result, there is not merely extra money going in. For example, when we came to power, people used to wait two years for their cataracts treatment; now, they wait three months. When we came to power, barely 50 per cent. of children got the right test results at 11; now, the figure is 75 per cent. We used to have a situation in which most of the stock in the national health service—the actual buildings—was built before the health service was started, but over the next few years, as a result of reform, the private finance initiative and also investment, we are going to renew the national health service stock. Yes, we are going to take these reforms further—that is because they work. They work in good combination with the investment produced by the strongest economy that this country has seen.

Michael Howard: Two questions asked, none answered. Let me ask the Prime Minister about a specific example. Yesterday, he talked about extending reform in education. Will he now guarantee to offer all parents the choice and freedom that his city academies offer only a few?

Tony Blair: We will certainly be extending choice and opportunity for parents in the education White Paper, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to watch for the details when the White Paper is introduced. Let me make this point to him: there can be no choice unless we also put in the investment to create better schools.
	When we came to power again—[Interruption.] This is important because of the change that has happened in our education system. There were significant numbers of London boroughs in which, on average, fewer than 25 per cent. of children were getting five good GCSEs. Today, no authority has a figure below 40 per cent. We used to have a situation in which only 30 schools in the whole of London got more than 70 per cent. good GCSEs, but now almost 100 schools achieve that. That is the difference that we are making. Choice cannot be introduced simply by a choice mechanism—it must go alongside investment, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed every penny piece of that investment. If he wants to lecture me about reform, perhaps he will come to the Dispatch Box to say that he was wrong to oppose the investment.

Michael Howard: Yet a third question not answered. We agree with the need for investment, but have always said that investment has to be accompanied by reform. The Prime Minister has not engaged in real reform. Is not his tragedy this: when he had the authority, he did not use it? In the past eight years he has been timid; now, he is just weak.

Tony Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he supports the investment, but he voted against it.

Michael Howard: Accompanied by reform.

Tony Blair: That is precisely what we are doing, so why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not supporting it? He says that he supports investment and reform, yet he opposed the investment. He says that he supports reform, but the payment-by-results system that is being introduced was opposed by his shadow health spokesman just yesterday.
	Let us be clear. The Conservatives do not support the investment or the reform. Why? Because in their 18 years they ran down public services and were only ever interested in public services for a few people at the top. It is this Government who are delivering decent public services for all our people. That is the difference between a strong Labour Government and a Conservative Government who never cared for anyone but a few at the top, and never will.

Hon. Members: More, more.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Andrew Turner: My constituent, John Packwood, spent 11 months in a Spanish jail before being extradited to Morocco without even a prima facie case against him. He now finds that he has no entitlement to consult an English lawyer. Thankfully, with great compassion and understanding, Mr. Mohamed Lididi, of the Moroccan Ministry of Justice, has agreed that he may do so on this occasion. Will the Prime Minister lend his support to ensure that any British subject is in future entitled to consult a British lawyer?

Tony Blair: Obviously, I know nothing about the individual case and there is no point in trying to comment on it. To be frank, I am not sure offhand what the procedures are for people who need to consult British lawyers. I am perfectly happy to look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. Had he given me advance notice of his question, I might have been able to work out a better reply.

Meg Hillier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's record investment in affordable housing is transforming the lives of thousands of people? However, too many families in Hackney are still unable to move into family sized accommodation. Recent research by Shelter shows that eight out of 10 of those families are concerned about the impact that that has on their children's education. Does he agree that we need to build more family homes for those families that are trapped in small flats?

Tony Blair: Yes, I do. It is why the London Housing Board is putting more of its £1.7 billion affordable housing budget into building homes of three bedrooms or more. My hon. Friend is right that it is a real problem, especially for people in London and the south-east. Again, it is only if we are prepared to take the measures both on building more homes and on supporting affordable homes that we will resolve the problem. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the Opposition to shout that they are concerned about this, but they oppose the development of extra housing, which is a necessary part of dealing with the problem in London and the south-east.

Alex Salmond: Can the Prime Minister explain how it is possible for the House to have full confidence in new terrorist legislation when existing anti-terrorist legislation is used inappropriately to detain 82-year-old pensioners at English holiday resorts? Can he also explain how it is possible to have confidence in the justice system when thugs who manhandle such pensioners are neither detained nor arrested, but apparently escape with impunity?

Tony Blair: We should debate the terrorist law on a sensible basis. We know that people in our country and around the world want to commit serious terrorist offences here, and we had a serious terrorist attack in the centre of London. Therefore, it is not surprising that we are debating how we protect our citizens better. All I am saying is let us have that debate based on the facts. We should at least take account of the fact that the senior police officer in charge of anti-terrorist activity says that our law is defective and has made what I think are reasonable proposals to change it. Let us debate those on a sensible basis.

Barbara Follett: October is breast cancer awareness month. Women across the country have been heartened by the much improved survival rate figures recently reported by Cancer Research UK. Those are mainly due to early and better access to screening, but that life-saving facility is available only to women over 50. Will my right hon. Friend consider making that available to women in their 40s as well?

Tony Blair: We do. Obviously, we have brought down the age limit, as my hon. Friend knows, which has had a big impact. It is worth pointing out that over the past 10 years long-term survival from breast cancer has improved dramatically in this country, which is the tremendous result both of the good work by doctors and nurses and of investment and earlier screening. My hon. Friend is right that we must consider how we can take this further. We must do so according to advice given to us about its appropriateness and how we best use resources for the health service. There is no doubt, however, that as a result of screening earlier we have saved lives. That is a testament not just to the good work of people in the national health service, but to the programme of investment and reform.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Prime Minister will welcome the recent success of the Assets Recovery Agency in targeting properties purchased in the Manchester area on behalf, it is believed, of senior members of the Provisional IRA. That is further evidence of their ongoing criminal activity. Will the Prime Minister give the Assets Recovery Agency the necessary resources to recover all the IRA's criminal assets, including the £26 million that it stole from the Northern bank, and will he ensure that every step is taken to bring an end to IRA criminal activity?

Tony Blair: We obviously support strongly the work of the Assets Recovery Agency, and it is important, particularly in light of the significant and welcome report by the Decommissioning Commission, that we make it clear that there is no activity of any nature—not simply paramilitary activity, but criminal activity—that is acceptable. It is not acceptable on the republican side, and it is not acceptable on the so-called loyalist side either. The only way that we will manage to get the institutions in Northern Ireland up and running again, as I know the hon. Gentleman wants and as I want too, is if everybody understands that it is not just terrorist campaigns that must cease—it is deeply welcome that they have done so—but all criminal activity that must cease. There cannot be any ambiguity about that.

Mark Tami: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for the tremendous support that they have given the Airbus A350 project, which will create and safeguard thousands of jobs in north Wales and the UK. Will he give the same level of support to the European Trade Commissioner and his difficult but vital talks at the World Trade Organisation, which will shape the future of the civil aviation industry in this country?

Tony Blair: The Commission has rightly made it clear that it will defend Airbus launch investment robustly in the World Trade Organisation talks. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. The launch aid for the A350 has obviously been extremely important in providing high-quality skills in our country, and it is important for the future of our manufacturing base. Airbus is a good example of European co-operation, and it has made a huge difference to the strength of the European economy. I expect that 20 or 30 years ago the idea of a European consortium challenging Boeing would have been considered far-fetched, but today such a consortium does so right around the world with considerable vigour and skill.

Andrew MacKay: Last month in Finchampstead in my constituency, two youngsters, Steven Bayliss and Twood Nadauld, were cruelly murdered by knife. It would be wrong for the Prime Minister to comment on the specific case because it is sub judice, but would he reflect that it would be wise to restore full stop-and-search powers to the police?

Tony Blair: We keep all police powers under close review. It is important, particularly in the context of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, that we take whatever measures we can. I shall certainly pay close attention to the details of that case as it proceeds, but there is an opportunity for us to debate these issues when dealing with that Bill. My general predisposition, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that if the police desire additional powers, they should be given to them. There are many other issues that go along with stop and search that we must weigh carefully in the balance, but we should do everything that we possibly can to ensure that tragic incidents and crimes, such as the one that affected his constituents, are not repeated.

Vera Baird: May I welcome the Government's commitment to tackling the issue of women's pensions? However, only 16 per cent. of retired women have a basic state pension in their own right, because they are not properly credited in the national insurance system for their years of caring for children and older relatives. Will my right hon. Friend commit to a change that will ensure that carers come into the pension system in the near future on the same basis as workers, because that is only fair?

Tony Blair: We will look at the matter in the context of the Pensions Commission report. My hon. and learned Friend has raised a valid point, but it is worth pointing out that some 1.3 million women have been lifted out of absolute low income and some 700,000 women have been lifted out of relative low income because of the approach that we have adopted over the past few years. Two thirds of those who are entitled to the pension credit are women, half of whom are over 75, and almost all of the 2 million carers who will benefit from the second state pension are women. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we must examine how to go further, but those of my hon. Friends who were in the House at the time will remember the years when pensioner poverty was a constant theme. Although we must do more, the worst aspects of pensioner poverty have been tackled as a result of the policies pursued by this Government.

BILL PRESENTED

Terrorism Bill

Mr. Secretary Clarke, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr Secretary Hain and Hazel Blears, presented a Bill to make provision for and about offences relating to conduct carried out, or capable of being carried out, for purposes connected with terrorism; to amend enactments relating to terrorism; to amend the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 55].

Local Government Consultation

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide a statutory framework for full public consultation by local authorities in England whenever major developments are proposed by such authorities.
	Those hon. Members who are currently scuttling towards the exit are, perhaps, on their way to talk to constituents, to take advice from their Whips or to listen to their secretaries. They are off to indulge in what everybody describes as "consultation". I wish that they would stay, because consultation is precisely what my little Bill is all about.
	To consult is a laudable democratic principle. Every weekend, I consult my constituents: I consult my office, my family, the butcher, the baker and even the candlestick-maker—when he is not up to his wick in wax! I do not have to take a blind bit of notice of any of them, but we like to consult, do we not? We like to go through the motions of seeking opinion; we may not be convinced by all that we hear, but at least we have bothered to ask. As a matter of fact, I am a committed advocate of consultation, but I want it to mean something. I want the people who give us their views to know that we have taken notice and, perhaps, have even adopted some of their ideas. I want consultation that works, which is what this Bill is about.
	Consultation has become a ludicrous buzzword. The Government swear by it—205 different consultations on new Government plans are currently under way, to which those of us with strong opinions and ample time are free to contribute our thoughts. There is, however, one small drawback: consultation does not involve any debate at all. The public are invited to pour in their opinion, which may be plagiarised, twisted or ignored.
	The scale of the consultation industry reminds me of the old maxim, "divide and rule". There are now so many official consultations that it is well nigh impossible to keep abreast of them, let alone to contribute. In addition to the Government's 205 open consultations, all of which are listed on a website that is expensively devoted to that purpose, there is an even bigger list of the Government's closed consultations. For example, the Health and Safety Executive is consulting on regulations concerning vibration at work. My office in this building is underneath Big Ben, so I consider myself an expert on vibration at work. Under the rules that govern closed consultations, however, I am not expert enough, so, although my entire body shakes uncontrollably whenever the clock strikes the hour, as far as the Health and Safety Executive is concerned, I can get knotted.
	Such are the small complications of consultation, but the big complications are much more serious. Consultations are voluntary, are not binding, and sad to say, are sometimes unworthy of the very paper that they end up being printed on. Making sure that consultation takes place at all is left to a toothless instrument of political persuasion—the vague, woolly and completely unenforceable code of conduct. Where would poor old Moses be today if God had handed him a code of conduct rather than 10 proper commandments? "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass" has more of a ring to it than, "Perhaps it would be better to leave the livestock alone."
	If anyone wants to examine the William Shakespeare of codes of conduct, I invite them to scrutinise that devised by those matchless boffins of blether and bureaucracy, the Cabinet Office. This is how it sounds:
	"Code 1. Consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of 12 weeks for consultation."
	What is meant by "widely"? Is that everybody, almost everybody, a chosen handful, or what?
	"Code 2. Be clear about what your proposals are."
	Clarity in government—that is a novelty.
	"Code 3. Ensure that your consultation is concise and accessible."
	How is one to do that?
	"Code 4. Give feedback regarding the responses received and how the consultation process influenced the policy."
	What sort of feedback?
	"Code 5. Monitor your department's effectiveness at consultation, including through the use of a designated consultation co-ordinator."
	In other words, hire a few more civil servants.
	"Code 6. Ensure your consultation follows better regulation best practice, including carrying out a Regulatory Impact Assessment."
	Where would we all be without a regulatory impact assessment?
	What the Cabinet Office does today, our local authorities are encouraged, cajoled or pretty well forced to do tomorrow. That is the problem. Codes of conduct are growing like Topsy. Consultations are bursting out everywhere about everything. They generate mountains of paper, they are not legally binding, and there are no set standards whatever.
	Before the general election—the only bit of recent genuine national consultation in this country—I argued in my constituency that we could do with some proper consultation whenever controversial schemes are proposed by local authorities. I had in mind the plans of West Somerset district council to shift offices and redevelop land. Months later—years later—discussions about those plans are still going on. I am certain that there would have been far fewer grounds for argument or anger if the council had properly consulted people fully from the start.
	First we need a decent definition of the word itself. The "Pocket Oxford Dictionary" suggests the following meanings:
	"seeking information or advice . . . taking into consideration the views of people . . . considering feelings".
	I am sure that every planner and politician in the land would endorse such sentiments and vow that consultation is a splendid part of the process—it is like motherhood and apple pie; one could not possibly disagree with the general idea—but with such a woolly meaning, consultation can be as good or as bad as planners and politicians prefer. The trouble is that too many planners and politicians are prepared to settle for the barest minimum when it comes to standards of consulting people.
	I am sorry to say that the blame lies here in Westminster. This House has always fought shy of spelling out what consultation should be—how local people are canvassed, how local views are assessed, what account is taken of opinion, and how many meetings will be held. The remit to consult is written into all local government legislation, but the dotted i's and crossed t's have always been left to the locals and their codes of conduct. Basically, this House has copped out.
	My private Member's Bill is designed effectively to put such procedures in front of Parliament. It will no longer be good enough for the transport authority to insert a tiny notice on page 103 of the classified ads in the local paper telling everybody what road is about to be closed, widened, re-rerouted or subjected to a half-baked new traffic management scheme. Under this Bill, the nature of the proposals would have to be crystal clear and they would have to be advertised so that people can see them. Local authorities would have to go out of their way to let people know what they are doing, and the Bill would specify how far out of their way they had to go. On the coastline in my constituency is a place called Hinkley Point, which is probably more famous for its nuclear power station than its landscape. Rumours abound that there might be a new power plant there—one day, perhaps soon. The need for a new and comprehensive consultation system is therefore urgent.
	Critics may say that consultation costs money. In the short term, yes, there will be costs. However, paying for sensible minimum standards—specified high- profile newspaper advertisements, intelligible letters to householders, public meetings and the like—will surely save money in the long term. If planners and politicians listen to local opinion first and take action based on what people really want rather than on what the town hall thinks that they want, it can only lead to better decision making.
	The inspiration for the idea was not merely born out of the confusion in West Somerset. I can cite hundreds of examples from up and down the country, where local authorities have paid lip service to the concept of consultation and reaped the consequences of unpopularity thereafter. Let me give one current example. Devon county council—my next-door council—decided, without the merest hint of asking anybody, to sell one of its most valuable assets, Exeter airport. One can picture the scene at Devon county hall: "I say old fruit, wouldn't it be spiffing if we flogged off the airport?" Did the council consult? No. Instead, it called in some expensive City types to offload the airport. No consultation whatever took place.
	Guess what—the Government have rightly called in the decision to have it reviewed by the Competition Commission. The council could have avoided that. The tragedy is that local authorities are not doing anything wrong. They are obeying the law as it stands. However, the law as it stands is legless legislation. The law leaves interpretation of the word "consultation" purely to the town halls.
	My Bill spells out the problem. It has the support of Members of Parliament from all parties. My Bill makes sense and I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, David Heyes, Kelvin Hopkins, Mr. Robert Syms, Mr. Ben Wallace, Stephen Hammond, Mr. Geoffrey Cox and David Mundell.

Local Government Consultation

Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger accordingly presented a Bill to provide a statutory framework for full public consultation by local authorities in England whenever major developments are proposed by such authorities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 November, and to be printed [Bill 56].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[6th Allotted Day]

Emergency Services (Regionalisation)

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first debate on Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Caroline Spelman: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the overwhelming rejection of regional government in the referendum held in the North East in November 2004; regrets the ongoing transfer of powers to unelected regional quangos since the result, taking power away from democratically accountable local councils; rejects the proposals for the regionalisation of the fire service and the imposition of distant Regional Fire Control Rooms; expresses concern at the possibility of police forces being structured on a Government Office Region level, making the police less responsive to local people, and voices similar concerns over the restructuring of NHS ambulance trusts; disagrees with the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals for the regionalisation of emergency services as being a desirable, legitimate or necessary tier of governance; and demands that the Government dismantles the unwanted and unaccountable regional administration of emergency services.
	The House may recall that, almost a year ago, on 4 November 2004, a referendum was held in the north-east on elected regional assemblies. The result was an emphatic no to regionalisation. Twelve months on, I am sure that colleagues are as surprised as me that the people of the north-east are still paying for a regional assembly, which 80 per cent. of them said that they did not want. Then again, everybody is paying for the roll-out of the Government's regional agenda. The difference is that in other parts of the country, people were not given the opportunity to reject assembles.
	However, regional assemblies, the unelected and unaccountable quangos that have leeched power from local people, are merely the most obvious manifestation of a tide of regionalism, which is fundamentally changing the way that we are governed. The most recent and disturbing example is the regionalisation of emergency services.
	The manner in which the regionalisation of emergency services was slipped out in the press during the summer recess shows just how sheepish the Government are about the announcement. I am sure that colleagues from all parties will, like me, have received many letters from people who are rightly concerned about the implications of the latest experiment in restructuring. From the signatures to early-day motion 229, it appears that at least 219 colleagues agree with those concerns.
	It started with the regionalisation of fire control rooms. Now ambulance trusts and police forces are to be morphed into an unwieldy regional structure. Regionalism is such an abstract concept—even the word "regionalisation" smacks of bureaucracy and administrative jargon. The Government's concept of regions pays scant regard to the geography of our country and people's sense of identity. It fails the Simon Jenkins test—the Marbella test. When we bump into someone walking along the beach in, say, Marbella, and we ask them where they are from, it is hard to imagine someone from Banbury saying that they are from what the Government call "the south-east". Similarly, people in Scunthorpe would never say that they came from Yorkshire and the Humber. This just shows how artificial, contrived and arbitrary these Government-defined regions really are.

Tony Baldry: What people in Banbury will say is that this regionalisation has practical implications. The emergency fire control rooms have to be kept going until 2009. When I went to the control centre the other day and met the staff, they said that over the next four or five years they were going to go and find other jobs. How are these things going to work? That is what people in Banbury are concerned about, not this daft regional experiment. They want to know what is going to happen when they dial 999 over the next few years.

Caroline Spelman: No one is better placed than my hon. Friend to speak on behalf of the people of Banbury, and he entirely anticipates what I was about to say. Making an announcement such as this is bound to result in people looking for other jobs.

Tony Wright: It is interesting that the hon. Lady mentioned the great Simon Jenkins just now. I should like to remind her that he wrote a book a few years ago which denounced the record of the previous Conservative Government for their ferocious centralisation and for what he called the "nationalisation of Britain". Is the hon. Lady recanting that part of her party's past along with everything else?

Caroline Spelman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to read one of Simon Jenkins's more recent publications, "Big Bang Localism", in which he roundly denounces the Government's plans for regionalisation. He is a fierce defender of the traditional structures of our country with which people truly identify.

Sarah Teather: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Spelman: I should like to make a little more progress.
	The mechanics of regionalisation will sideline our counties and shires in favour of governmental units, which are not only culturally alien but undemocratic. In regard to emergency services, the measures will be hugely damaging. As no statement has been made to the House on these changes, I have had to rely on press reports. They seem to suggest that the number of fire control rooms is to be cut from 46 to nine, the number of ambulance trusts from 31 to 11, and the number of police forces from 43 to 23. There is not even any consistency across Whitehall on how to structure the regions. One of the lessons that we have all learned from New Orleans is that overlapping and confusing tiers of administration compromise our ability to respond in an emergency.

John Greenway: My hon. Friend said that there had been no public statement on these matters. Worse than that, there has been precious little, if any, public consultation. The Government who gave us the stealth tax are now introducing the stealth axe. Many of our services are being cut without any consultation whatever. England's biggest county, North Yorkshire, which stretches the same distance as that between London and Bristol, is going to have fire service control rooms out of county, a police force that will probably be run from West Yorkshire, and Lord knows where the ambulance service will come from, but it will also be cut under these plans.

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I could not have put it better myself, but he puts it well on behalf of the people he is elected to represent, and I am sure that they will appreciate his raising these concerns in the House on their behalf.
	In practical terms, we learned only yesterday that huge tracts of the country from Banbury to Folkestone were to be served by only one fire control room, in Fareham. When people in Gloucester call the local fire brigade, they will be speaking to an operator in Taunton, and the regional fire control room for the whole of the north-west, stretching right up to the border with Scotland, will be in Warrington.
	At Prime Minister's questions, we heard the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins)—one of the Government's own—voicing her concern that one ambulance trust for the whole of the west midlands region would be unlikely to deliver a better service. Such views have been echoed by the chief executive of the Staffordshire ambulance trust, Roger Thayne, who said that there was
	"no evidence that larger ambulance services are anything than more expensive and do not improve performance and save more lives . . . Services serving a population of more than 2 million cost more and save less lives."
	The Government would do well to listen to one of their Members and to front-line practitioners in those services.

Mark Harper: In reference to the fire control centre in Quedgeley, Gloucester, my hon. Friend might be interested to know that there is not
	"a better example . . . in the south-west than what we have managed to achieve in our tri-service centre."—[Official Report, 15 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 90.]
	Those are not my words but those of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), who sits on the Labour Benches, in 2004. My hon. Friend is perceptive in picking up that many Labour Members are concerned about such moves locally, but no doubt they will sit silently, as the hon. Member for Gloucester will, as their Government steamroller through these plans.

Caroline Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The fact is that the Gloucester fire control room will be lost. Perhaps one fruit of today might be that the Government listen to concerns from both sides of the House, including from their Back Benchers.
	It is amazing how many euphemisms there are for the word "cuts"— restructuring, rationalising, and dare I say, regionalising, all spring to mind. Were the roles reversed, and were we announcing cuts on such a scale, the shrieks from the Labour Benches would be enough to shatter the new glass screen. Local emergency services will be mothballed and local knowledge and expertise will be lost.

Michael Penning: The Minister is, like me, a former fireman, and he knows that local knowledge of topography saves lives. Ultimately, I do not think that he believes in the regionalisation but has been told what to do by the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe passionately that firemen want to save lives, like I did. The Minister does not believe that what is going on is right—it will cost lives and he knows that it has done.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend makes a point about those who operate within the service and who put their lives on the line. I hope that he will speak in this debate and give us the benefit of his inside knowledge. I also hope that there is a chink in the Government's armour with a Minister susceptible to such important arguments.
	I know that advances in technology can change the way that services are delivered, but anyone who has a car equipped with satellite navigation will know that it is far from infallible and that a little local knowledge counts for a lot. Common sense tells us that when it comes to providing emergency services, local knowledge is a precious commodity—speed of response is everything, and that can so easily be compromised by such practical issues as time lost through not being able to place an address or even a misunderstanding arising from an operator who is unfamiliar with the accent of someone in distress.
	It is an issue not just of proximity, however, but of priority. Within a region, which area will get first call on where resources are targeted? It is nearly always the urban areas at the expense of the rural areas.

Damian Green: Before my hon. Friend moves off the point about local knowledge, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) has put eloquently in the case of the fire service, I want to draw to her attention the case of the police service. Recent surveys by Kent police have shown that the single biggest complaint of my constituents and others in Kent was that they were dialling 999 and getting people who clearly had no knowledge of the area in which they lived. That significantly reduced confidence in the police. If we get regional call centres, in which people will not even have heard of the town in which the emergency is taking place, public confidence in our police will be reduced. Along with the many other reasons that she has advanced, that ought to give the Government pause and get them to reverse this wretched policy.

Caroline Spelman: I agree totally with my hon. Friend, and he will have heard from the support for his intervention that the experience of most of us is that the regionalisation of call centres for our police services is simply not working. It is unpopular with those of us who want to use the service and generally increases anxiety when a critical 999 call is being made. It is not working well.
	In my constituency, police resources have been diverted into Birmingham, which has left outlying areas very exposed. When I asked my local chief constable why response times were so long in my constituency, he replied, "It's simple, Mrs. Spelman, as a police force we have 98 hot spots to focus on and none of those is in your constituency." With people forking out for way above inflation increases in council tax, they are entitled to ask why the Government can no longer afford to maintain local services.
	That issue of resource allocation is part and parcel of accountability. Once the regional framework for such services has been established, they will no longer be answerable to the communities that they serve. By determining targets and priorities at a regional level, accountability is being eroded, and in the long term that can only make life more difficult for front-line staff. Historically, the strength of our emergency services has been partly derived from the support of the society that they serve, but by adopting a regional structure that crucial relationship is broken. How can a single body serving a region of up to 8 million people possibly be more responsive than a locally-based, locally-accountable service?
	Over and above the advantages that we know we will lose by moving to a regional structure, what about all the risks that go with such a radical upheaval? I am not a natural pessimist, but the track record of this Government on delivering grand IT projects is not great. The tax credits and the Passport Agency fiasco bear witness to how badly things can go wrong, and the consequences of such a breakdown when it comes to providing rescue services is unimaginable. Obviously, the worst case scenario is loss of life arising from an IT breakdown, but even risks such as project over-run in terms of both time and budget will end up impacting on council tax bills. Yet again people will be forced to dip into their pockets and pay for the costs of regionalisation, which they never even wanted—costs that some estimate could run as high as £988 million for the restructuring of fire services alone.
	What is the driver behind this headlong rush into regionalisation? Certainly, it is not that local people want it. As a project, it seems fraught with risks that are simply not outweighed by the benefits. I am no military tactician, but it would seem elementary that in the current climate of heightened security, consolidating multiple emergency services into just one location makes the overall structure even more vulnerable to attack. If a regional centre is knocked out, I presume that the fallback would be another regional centre even further away. That smacks of putting all our eggs in one basket.
	No one is going to be fooled by the packaging of these proposals. People can see that reorganisation is a cost-cutting exercise, not least because of the 1,300 or so jobs that will be lost in local fire control rooms. Although these changes will not be complete until 2009, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) pointed out, the reality is that jobs will start leaching away from now, undermining the quality of the service in the interim. That will happen with all emergency services as regionalisation gathers pace. Attractive headlines such as "A New Era for NHS Ambulance Services", cannot mask the inevitable decline that will follow. Certainly, that will not satisfy an efficient ambulance trust such as Warwickshire, which makes half the number of patient journeys as London with just one tenth of the funding. Ambulance trust managers suspect that it is much more about the Government delivering their manifesto pledge to provide £250 million worth of savings in NHS administration. Surely it is the Chancellor who should be subject to efficiency savings and performance delivery targets rather than our front-line emergency services.
	In whose interest is regionalisation really taking place? The ambulance service review said that trusts needed to be
	"of a size to provide better financial, operational and resource management."
	But there is no mention of the patients. Everyone knows that rural ambulances have to carry more kit because of the greater distances over which they have to travel, but will that get overlooked under regional procurement? I am not even convinced that regionalisation delivers cost benefits. It is rare for reorganisation to save money. It is not that we believe that no scope exists for amalgamating services; scope does exist, if doing so is practical and people want it. That is why we have set out an alternative "clustering" of local authorities, as and when they see fit. Such an arrangement will be more responsive to local demands and will better reflect considerations such as population, geography and infrastructure. It is a far more practical solution than a one-size-fits-all jacket of regionalisation. Above all, it ensures proper accountability.

Andrew Turner: May I provide some evidence to support my hon. Friend's assertion? Only last night, the now Conservative-controlled Isle of Wight council agreed to co-operate with Conservative-controlled Hampshire council on the provision of fire services. They did not need to amalgamate to provide an improved service.

Jim Fitzpatrick: indicated assent.

Caroline Spelman: My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) demonstrates the benefit of an entirely voluntary, clustered approach in which both parties see the benefit of the merger.
	People at the front line know where and when to coalesce far better than a bureaucrat in Whitehall, so why do the Government not trust them and give them that freedom? This Government will not embrace clustering because to do so is to grant local authorities and service providers a degree of autonomy: in other words, it is decentralisation. No matter how hard the Government try to speak the language of localism, they still behave as if central Government know best. That is why regionalisation, in whatever form, is not a way of delivering localism; it is just a way of enforcing centralism. The evidence is there. The Government have created a plethora of unelected regional bodies in what amounts to a "quangocracy". The A to Z of this quangocracy covers art, biodiversity, climate change, fire, housing, industry, public health, rural affairs, social inclusion, tobacco, transport and waste.
	Local people are finding that decisions directly affecting their lives are being taken by regional assemblies that they cannot hold to account. Who are these assemblies answerable to? They are answerable to nobody—except the Deputy Prime Minister. If that is localism, the mind boggles as to what form a dictatorship would take. If people are paying for them, do they not have a right to know what these unelected regional bodies are up to? Why are the regional assemblies exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000? The Lord Chancellor still has not replied to that question, which I put to him a week ago, so perhaps the Minister could do so when he responds.
	Something tells me that that the Government are all too aware of the folly of this regionalisation programme. There are few—except the Deputy Prime Minister himself—who would rush to defend it, but in fact regionalisation has gone beyond being his personal plaything: it has become a proxy for sweeping cuts to our public services. Taxpayers have a right to know what has happened to their money. Has a risk assessment or a cost-benefit analysis of regionalisation been carried out? [Interruption.] The Minister says yes, so perhaps he we would like to publish it and make it available to Members.
	When local police stations, fire control rooms and ambulance trusts are boarded up and the land used for the Deputy Prime Minister's so-called £60,000 houses, people will see how he and the Chancellor have conspired to scrap their local emergency services, and they will not thank them for it. There is no demand for regionalisation; the quality of our services will suffer and it comes at a high price. Surely now is the time to abort this disastrous regionalisation programme and to accede to the wishes of the electorate. The Deputy Prime Minister is playing politics with people's lives, putting his empire building before the public interest. The rest of us in politics understand that the public interest must come first.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to end and add:
	"supports local, regional and national collaboration to improve public safety and health; welcomes the continuing reduction in fire deaths which Fire and Rescue Authorities have achieved in partnership with the Government and other stakeholders; welcomes the positive role played by local authorities in Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and the fall in crime as a result; welcomes the public consultation under way to ensure police force structures protect the public from terrorism and organised crime, while continuing to provide responsive neighbourhood policing that meets the needs of local communities; welcomes the proposed managerial changes in ambulance trusts which will cut overheads and bureaucracy, while boosting investment in front-line staff and services for patients; and congratulates the Government on increasing expenditure on all the emergency services since its election in 1997.".
	I speak on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as the Minister responsible for the fire and rescue service—one of the emergency services whose future has, we have just been told, prompted today's debate. Anyone reading the Opposition motion would be led to believe that our emergency services are either in difficulty or about to be so. With respect, that argument does not stand up to inspection.
	I shall try to respond to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) by outlining exactly how much progress has been made in recent years, especially in the fire and rescue services. The Government's role in trying to deliver this progress has been clear. On the back of the 2002–03 fire dispute, we had the Bain inquiry—an independent review that recommended what Professor Bain called "supra-brigade co-ordination". He argued that local fire services could improve their effectiveness in saving lives by working together at regional level in key areas such as command and control. The June 2003 White Paper and the subsequent national framework documents set the strategic direction for the 21st century fire and rescue service—one in which prevention has joined emergency response as a core function.

Sarah Teather: Although the Bain review recommended co-operation, it also specifically ruled out the merging of services.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady makes a fair point; I was simply trying to explain that the Bain inquiry pointed in a particular direction. We are not trying to force amalgamations or mergers, but we do support co-operation and collaboration between county brigades where appropriate. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) mentioned earlier, such a decision was taken by the Isle of Wight and Hampshire fire authorities. We have discussed it and we know that it is a sensible move forward, and I will further discuss Professor Bain's recommendations in due course.

David Drew: As my hon. Friend knows and as has been mentioned, we have the tri-service centre in Quedgeley, in Gloucester, which has been subjected to an initial evaluation. Will he now agree to a full evaluation, and will he talk to the various parts of that service—not just the management, but the workers—to see whether that model has some merit and could be applied in other parts of the country?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has written to me about this issue and we have discussed it, and I will in due course explain in detail why we are not convinced that that model is the best one for 21st century fire brigades, and why the proposal on which we will deliver is the best way forward for England's fire and rescue services.
	The fire and rescue national framework sets out the Government's priorities and objectives for the fire and rescue service. What both the authorities and the Government need to do is to achieve them. The framework provides clear direction from central Government, while ensuring that locally, authorities are free to continue to make their own strategic decisions about fire cover.
	We have set overall public service agreement targets. By 2010, we want to cut accidental fire deaths in the home by 20 per cent. and deliberate fires by 10 per cent.

Michael Penning: You say that local authorities can choose whether to amalgamate. Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire fire authorities have chosen to do so and that is good practice, but such choice does not apply to fire control centres. They have no choice—you are imposing regional control centres on them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would never impose anything on anyone.

Jim Fitzpatrick: If the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) can be patient, I shall discuss the specific arrangements and our proposals for fire controls in greater detail later.
	As I was saying a few moments ago, we have set firm public service agreement targets to cut accidental deaths, injuries and fires in the home—targets that were attacked by some and criticised by many who said that the 20 per cent. cut in deaths was not ambitious enough and that we should have zero tolerance of fire deaths. However, it is our belief that setting this target is achievable, practicable and provides a good way forward for the immediate future.

Eric Pickles: The Minister's ideas and targets for reducing deaths are laudable. To a degree, fire deaths are at a plateau in respect of the next series to be reduced, but surely the most logical approach is to tackle the problem of houses in multiple occupation. In particular, we should be thinking about using sprinkler schemes. The Minister is going to spend considerable amounts of money on reorganisation, but would it not be better spent on sprinklers and tackling the problem of houses in multiple occupation?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his familiarity with his subject. There is no disagreement between us that sprinkler systems are an effective way of protecting people, particularly the most vulnerable. I commend to him this morning's Westminster Hall debate with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) on the very subject of smoke detectors. What I said there demonstrates exactly what the Government are trying to achieve through the development of domestic sprinkler systems, which we believe will protect the most vulnerable in our communities. I do not disagree with the idea of moving in that direction, but I am also saying that any savings made from the new regional control centres will be available for fire and rescue services to deploy for the better protection of their local communities. I shall say more about that in due course.

Richard Younger-Ross: The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who now sits on the Back Benches, was clear in Committee that the Government were looking towards taking action on sprinkler systems and that new legislation would be introduced in the form of building regulations. Can the Minister tell us when that is likely to happen?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The building regulations document is out for consultation at the moment and we expect the outcome of that consultation to be known shortly. I shall endeavour to supply the hon. Gentleman with the exact date in due course.
	The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 put prevention at the heart of the Government's agenda for improving the fire and rescue service and created a new duty to promote fire safety. The Government are also reforming general fire safety legislation, ensuring that the responsibility for safety in non-domestic premises will rest with the person responsible for those premises. From 1 April next year, the Regulatory Reform Order 2001 will simplify the law, remove a bureaucratic regime of fire certification, and replace it with a modern risk assessment approach.
	We are investing substantially in the service, including in new personal protective equipment for firefighters' own safety and new training facilities and opportunities. In particular, the training facilities for urban search and rescue at the Fire Service college are now regarded as the best in the world. Grant support is also targeted for local action to reduce arson and other fire risks. Under the home fire risk check programme, for example, we are funding to the total of £25 million a programme of visits to the 1,250,000 houses that are judged to be most at risk from fire to offer advice and practical help such as the free installation of smoke alarms. In the first six months of this year alone, 87,000 such visits took place and 91,000 new smoke alarms were fitted. I have already mentioned this morning's Westminster Hall debate on the subject, sponsored by the hon. Member for Rochdale.
	In 2005–06, fire and rescue authorities received an average 3.7 per cent. grant increase and no authority received less than 2.5 per cent. In addition to that investment in fire prevention and mainstream emergency response, the Government are investing heavily in a new resilience framework—approaching £1 billion to create a national network of regional fire control centres, called FiReControl—a new radio system called Firelink and a new dimensions programme, which has seen us commit £180 million for mass decontamination, urban search and rescue, and high-volume pumping equipment to improve the capability of the fire and rescue service to respond to major disasters, including terrorist incidents.

David Taylor: The Minister knows from our discussion yesterday that I was lobbied by the fire control staffs of the five component counties of the east midlands, which will see their centres closed and relocated to the northern part of north-west Leicestershire. If he is so convinced of the strength of his case on regional centres, will he now announce that there will be an independent assessment of the business case that underpins a very expensive and quite risky project?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend raised that matter with me yesterday and he will recall that I suggested that if he listened to my full explanation, he might be persuaded that a full independent assessment was unnecessary. The Government certainly do not believe that such an assessment is needed. We believe that all the protocols of assessment within the Government have been observed and that the business case, as well as the professional and organisational case, clearly stand up to scrutiny.

Richard Benyon: rose—

Jim Fitzpatrick: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have already spent 10 minutes, but I am only a third of the way through my speech. I will give way later, but we have only limited time and many colleagues wish to participate in the debate. If he insists, however, I will give way.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful. Will the Minister respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about the Government's lamentable performance on new information technology projects, which are absolutely key to success?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Yes, I shall deal with the issue later in my speech, but to anticipate, nothing that we are going to deploy in the new regional control centres has to be invented. Everything is already in existence and already deployed in fire control centres in different parts of the country. The problem is that only a minority of fire services have and enjoy the benefits, which we are going to roll out to all 46 English fire brigades so that the latest technology will be available to all.
	I have said many times before that existing control staff do a good job, but that does not mean that we have a control system suited to the demands of the 21st century. To respond more fully to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), with FiReControl, we will enhance the role of control staff with the latest technology, which has a proven track record with emergency services across the country. The new national network will make it possible to respond effectively to all incidents, however big, whether natural disasters or terrorist attack, and allow the service to deal with surges in demand that can currently overwhelm local resources. Should one centre be out of action because of loss of power or telecommunications, it will allow immediate fallback arrangements. It will underpin dynamic mobilising of appliances to help cut incident response times, resulting in saving lives and reducing property damage, as well as allowing data transfer from control rooms to the cab or fire appliances on the way to incidents.

Tim Boswell: Will the Minister also explain whether the new system will be interactive in respect of information and control with police control systems?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The gold command structure has worked effectively from 7 July and the Firelink radio communication system will have interoperability, which is part of the modernisation process in communications.
	In carrying all that out, we estimate savings of more than £20 million a year and a 30 per cent. reduction in annual running costs, with the money saved to be reinvested in the service. There is an overwhelming case on resilience and efficiency grounds for FiReControl, which will help deliver individual fire and rescue authorities' integrated risk management plans and be fully accountable to those authorities.
	All that makes the Opposition motion particularly baffling, as we have freed the fire and rescue services from centralised state control. We have repealed section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which meant that almost any change in local operational delivery required ministerial approval, and removed the outdated national standards for fire cover that forced local professional chief fire officers into a Whitehall-imposed straitjacket. We have thus moved the emphasis of protection for the fire and rescue service from buildings to people, and put the service under local control.

Tony Baldry: The Oxfordshire fire service does not want a regional fire and control centre. The Minister has talked a lot about resilience, but how will he protect the integrity of control centres between now and 2009? There are 22 jobs at Kidlington. Those people owe their families a duty of care, and they will drift away and find employment elsewhere. How will he ensure that the Oxfordshire fire and control centre will still operate between now and 2009?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is being addressed by local fire authorities, chief fire officers and human resources managers. My Department is also looking at its ability to assist in the transfer arrangements between now and 2009. We know that the majority of posts will be maintained, and we are confident that most control room staff will want to avail themselves of the new opportunities for better career paths in the new control rooms. There will be better facilities, and greater demands will be placed on the professionalism of staff, many of whom are under-utilised at present. However, not everyone will adopt the same approach, and it is clear that management will have to deal with that.
	I was saying that I hoped that all hon. Members would welcome the integrated risk management plans, which respond to many of the needs of our constituents and communities. As has been noted in the past few minutes, people do not want to be told by Whitehall what to do and how to deploy resources. Throughout, we have sought to work with the elected members of fire and rescue authorities to modernise and improve the service so that we can achieve our common goal of saving lives, reducing injuries and preventing fires.

Jeremy Wright: My question may be hypothetical, but it is all too possible. A person who reports a fire in my area might not know the locality and so may not be able to describe the address. An operator in a regional fire control centre is far less likely to be able to fill in the gaps in that report than would be the case with a local fire control operator. Therefore, would not a regional fire control centre be less likely to save lives than a local one?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I shall draw two analogies for the hon. Gentleman. First, London has a single control centre that covers several hundred square miles, and a population of 7 million people who speak 300 languages. However, that centre's staff are among the most efficient in the country. By contrast, the Strathclyde centre deals with most of the west coast of Scotland, which includes both rural and metropolitan communities. The latest technology and the professionalism of our control staff mean that reports are being dealt with more efficiently than ever before. I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman to look at the modern control rooms that a minority of this country's fire brigades have. I accept that not every brigade has a modern control room, but we want to make the technology available to everyone. His question is a fair one, but the problem will be resolved by the use of modern technology.
	Naturally, there is a regional dimension to this matter. The Government offices for the regions exist because, more than a decade ago, the Conservative Government of the time decided that it made sound organisational sense for different Departments to operate within the same geographical boundaries. The same logic—

Caroline Spelman: The Government offices for the regions were set up originally to act as a one-stop-shop interface between Whitehall Departments, especially for people a long way from London. They were never conceived as an accountable body to which emergency services should be responsible. Does the Minister accept that the Government's policy of establishing elected regional assemblies has failed, and that the proposed regionalisation of the emergency services is not democratically accountable?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The world has moved on, and indirectly elected regional assemblies now exist. In the fire service, for example, there are regional resilience forums, through which the fire and rescue service can co-ordinate with other organisations how best to respond to natural disasters and emergencies. The London resilience forum has been working since September 2001. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that its existence was what helped London respond so effectively to the bombings in July. It served as a clearing house for all the major organisations in business, emergency services, the voluntary sector and local authorities. It allowed those bodies to plan for such an incident, and we all know how well London responded when the time came. We need to establish the same structures at regional level in all parts of England, to ensure that the country is protected. That is a question not of ideology, but of basic common sense.
	I turn now to the restructuring of the police force. At present there are 43 police forces in England and Wales, and for some time people have questioned whether that is the right structure. Police forces need to be able to tackle crime at all levels. They need to be able to deliver neighbourhood policing, and have the capacity and ability to meet the threats posed by terrorism, domestic extremism, serious organised crime and civil emergencies.
	Concern has been expressed—not least within the police service itself—that the existing force structure is not fit to undertake both those critical roles. For that reason, in June 2004 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary commissioned Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to examine whether the service was sufficiently robust to handle the whole spectrum of its responsibilities. The HMIC's findings were published last month in a report entitled "Closing the Gap". It concluded that the existing structure was no longer fit for its purpose and that, below a certain size, there is not a sufficient critical mass to provide the necessary sustainable level of protective services that the 21st century increasingly demands.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sorry, but I must make progress. The inspectorate looked at a number of options for restructuring the police service. It concluded that the creation of strategic forces offered the best solution, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed. He has made it clear that he has no blueprint for restructuring, and that the process should be led by the police. He has therefore invited chief constables and police authorities to submit proposals for restructuring by 23 December.

Mark Francois: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I will in a moment. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is confident that the proposals for strategic forces will improve our capacity to tackle the most serious crimes, and therefore strengthen local policing. The bedrock for the delivery of neighbourhood policing is the basic command unit. That will not change. Local policing will continue to be delivered from local police stations, by locally based police officers, special constables and community support responding to locally determined policies.
	In fact, far from putting local policing at risk, the creation of strategic forces will help safeguard neighbourhood policing. If a police force has the capacity and resilience to staff major crime teams or respond to public order incidents, it will not need to call on neighbourhood policing teams. If such capacity is not in place, local policing will suffer from abstractions to meet other demands. As I have said, police authorities and chief constables have been asked to submit firm proposals for restructuring by Christmas, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House on those submissions in the new year.

James Gray: The Minister is very generous in giving way. If his thesis is that big, by definition, is beautiful, will he explain why the City of London police force is being left alone? That force has national strength in the prevention of white-collar fraud, but it is the smallest force in England. Why is it not to be touched?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making progress on the basis of the HMIC report, and further information will be available in due course. However, it is to the HMIC that he will listen and the hon. Gentleman will be able to continue this dialogue when the various police authorities have made their submissions and my right hon. Friend has presented his report to the House in the new year.

Mark Francois: rose—

Jim Fitzpatrick: I turn now to the ambulance service. A full 12-week public consultation led by the strategic health authorities will be held on the future organisation of ambulance trusts. The Department of Health will propose that there should be 11 such trusts, but no final decision will be taken until local interests, patients and the public have been properly consulted. The proposed change is part of a wider review of ambulance services that sets out a compelling vision for the future. It will provide an extended range of service, take health care to the patient and offer fast, effective and convenient care at the first point of contact.

Tony Wright: My hon. Friend made a powerful case about the fire control centres, but he has a less powerful case in relation to some other services. In Staffordshire, we have a high-performing police force. I have an outstandingly successful local primary care trust and the Staffordshire ambulance service is the best performing ambulance service in the country with the best response times. Our approach to public services used to be based around the slogan, "What matters is what works." That was sensible. What is not sensible is to exchange that for a slogan of, "If it's working well, abolish it."

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in defence of the Staffordshire ambulance trust, and I am sure note will be taken of his comments in the consultation, which is under way. We are not trying to replace what works best. We are trying to make sure that what works best works across the country.

Andrew Lansley: In relation to the police service, the Minister has just said that he is going to have a police service-led review. In relation to the ambulance service, he has been told by the Department of Health that the Department will propose 11 trusts. Why cannot he accept that the review led by Peter Bradley did not point towards 11 trusts but to maybe 20-plus? Also, if the review were ambulance service-led, there would be a different solution. Why will he not have open consultation on the basis of an ambulance service-led solution?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman; the consultation is open. I have indicated that, at the conclusion of the submissions, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House in due course. Clearly that will provide opportunities to colleagues to make their feelings known.
	It is our belief that ambulance trusts need to be of a size that enables appropriate investment in people and resources to underpin current and future services. These proposals will ensure that resources are targeted where they are most needed in improving patient care and supporting the front line. It is not about reducing frontline service provision. Local innovations and successes will not only be preserved, but will be shared to the benefit of all patients.
	We have an opportunity to lift the quality of the lowest and to set a new high benchmark where world-class services are provided for patients wherever they live. Nor is it about one trust taking over another; it is about new trusts that provide efficient and effective locally responsive ambulance trusts that meet patient needs. We believe that these proposals will put the NHS in the best position to provide convenient, consistently high-quality and appropriately mobile health care for the people of England. I am sure that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) will be saying more about this in due course.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. May I take him back to policing? The Government seem convinced that big is beautiful. They are trying to press chief constables to have fewer and fewer divisions and are now threatening to get rid of well established county forces such as Essex. How will having fewer and fewer divisions and getting rid of the Essex police force make that force more accountable to the local people whom they are supposed to serve?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the big successes in recent years, certainly in London, has been neighbourhood policing; dedicated teams in the locality that are connecting with local people and local representatives, whether these are democratically elected or community groups. As I said, the measure will give capacity to allow forces to deal with the big incidents and challenges of the 21st century, while being able to be responsive to local needs and to deal with local problems, which is what people want most. That is a success story that we are rolling out across the country.
	Finally, over the summer recess, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of fire and rescue services across the country. These visits have given me the opportunity to see at first hand the excellent work going on locally, especially new work on community safety, including youth intervention schemes and the growing use of co-responder schemes in which, again, the emergency services work together.
	Fire and rescue authorities have in general responded well to the challenge presented by their new responsibilities. The combination of national strategy and investment with local delivery led by elected fire and rescue authority members is working. Nowhere is this clearer than in the voluntary regional management boards, where Conservative and Liberal Democrat members work alongside their Labour colleagues to provide the best service for their communities. They know how important it is to support the fire and rescue service, and the improvements can be clearly seen on the ground.
	Our approach—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), but I do firmly believe in our approach—has the full backing of the Chief Fire Officers Association, who lead a practitioners' forum that gives us expert professional advice, the Local Government Association, who are key partners in modernisation, and the stakeholders represented in our business and community safety forum.
	I pay tribute to our whole-time, day crewing and retained firefighters as well as to other fire service staff who serve our communities well. We know that, regardless of debates about geographic boundaries and management structures, the Fire and Rescue Service will continue to work with local people, elected representatives from all parties and other emergency services to give the public the protection and the help they expect and deserve.

Sarah Teather: We should begin by scotching the first myth of this debate: that Labour started the process of quangocratisation. [Interruption.] It is a long word, is it not? It is a good way to start. In 1994, the Conservatives invented a system whereby the Home Office appointed independent members to police authorities, thereby separating the relationship with county councils and, in effect, quangocratising it.
	Let us not pretend that the Conservatives oppose regional quangos. In London, they abolished elected regional government and replaced it with a host of regional quangos, such as the London planning advisory committee, the London research centre and the London ecology unit. They did not oppose that then and they do not oppose it now. They are going through a phase of claiming to champion local government—probably because they have lost faith in their ability to get into government nationally.
	In office, the Conservatives were responsible for some of the worst crimes of centralised tyranny and affronts to local democracy—for example, universal and arbitrary rate capping and the nationalisation of business rates. Despite their high moral tone today—it sticks in my throat even more than my October cold, which, forgive me, has made me cough throughout the debate so far—there is little substantive detail in their policies on localising power.
	The Conservatives' polices to abolish quangos leave a lot to be desired. Before the election they promised to abolish 168 quangos—a swathe of quangos, particularly in the Department of Health, that the Government were already abolishing. Another group of quangos on the list had not met for 15 or 20 years. Of the others, the majority had been proposed for privatisation or renationalisation. I do not call that an expansion of local democracy. The only quangos whose powers would be returned to local government were regional assemblies, regional observatories and regional housing boards.
	If the Conservatives want to defend local accountability, why on earth are they so opposed to regions? The main reasons are some kind of strange conspiracy theory about Europe, concern about the committee of regions and a perceived threat to county councils, when instead they should be making proposals to devolve power from central Government.
	Let us have a look at Labour. Regions were already a fait accompli when it came to power because the Conservatives had developed the regional offices. Labour, however, did have a good idea that we supported, although we disagreed on some of the details, which was to make regional government accountable. We supported the proposals to establish elected regional assemblies across the country because they would deal with the democratic deficit of regional government, which at present is unaccountable. We did not think that the proposed devolution went far enough and we disagreed with the compulsory link with local government reorganisation. That is history: the question now is how we move beyond the north-east referendum.

James Gray: Does the hon. Lady agree that more important than what the Liberal Democrats think is what the people think? In the north-east of England, 78 per cent. of the people said that they hated the idea of elected regional assemblies. Does she want to go against the will of the people?

Sarah Teather: That is precisely the point. The people in the north-east rejected the proposals, yet, regardless of their views, Labour is ploughing ahead with the regional agenda. Our view is that governance without accountability would be a massive step backwards.
	Perhaps Labour has achieved what it wanted all along, because the regional quangos are still in place. Unelected bodies with a membership largely appointed by ministerial fiat tend to do what they are told. If they do not, they can be overruled with impunity. However, if the Labour Government were true to the democratic traditions of this country, they would seek to reform those bodies to make them more accountable, not less accountable, and more in touch with their local communities, not less. Instead, vital services will become even more remote from the people they serve.
	What of the pragmatic details of regionalising emergency services? Hon. Members would expect me not to subscribe to the view that big is beautiful, but the existing 43 police authorities vary considerably in size and capacity. I accept the scope for reviewing relationships across forces, but why will the process be so top-down? The Minister suggested that it would be led by police from the bottom up, but will he give us an assurance today that if police authorities oppose the proposals to merge, they will be allowed to retain the forces that they believe to be best for local people? Perhaps that question could be answered in the wind-up. At a time when everybody says that they want more community policing, the priority should be to make the police more local, not more distant.

David Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the Minister failed to respond to hon. Members who made similar points earlier. If a police force is organised to be more efficient for a small number of rare but serious crimes, police authorities will focus on those crimes to the detriment of local community policing. I do not see how that can fit with the Department's emphasis on communities and neighbourhoods.

Sarah Teather: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about the danger of skewing police operations towards rare incidents. I understand that responding to such incidents eats up the resources of small forces, but there must be other ways of addressing that problem. For example, we could have a national resources unit, with senior officers and experts who could provide back-up in complex cases. That would be better than proposing to run rural policing in Cornwall from Exeter or, even worse, Bristol, which would feel a long way from people who live in rural Cornwall.
	The Government have proposed much structural reform but have failed to account for the existing fundamental flaw in police authority structures—that they are tax-raising bodies but are not elected. Police authorities have put up their council tax precepts by 150 per cent. since 1997—double the figure for councils—but there has been no outcry. It is the councils who bill people, collect the money and take the blame. No one begrudges the police the extra money that we know they need, but what happened to the principle of no taxation without representation? The Government should consider ways of making the police more accountable. The Liberal Democrats are consulting on our policies following the result of the north-east referendum, and we will look for ways of making police and other services more democratically accountable.
	One of the options—of many—that my colleagues have raised is the provision of policing contracts with local authorities. Each council would negotiate a local policing contract with the police authority, based on an agreed local policing plan and a minimum service agreement. The contract would specify the level of funding for the police authority and set out the minimum deployment of police and community support officers in each district or borough.
	We must also abolish the byzantine system of appointment for independent members of police authorities. We would remove the role of the Home Secretary and have a more transparent, locally controlled process that would be far more in the hands of local people. The Government are quiet on such issues, but why are they not thinking more boldly about how to make police authorities and other structures more accountable?

Rob Marris: I invite the hon. Lady to visit the west midlands, which has the largest police force outside London. We have neighbourhood policing, with operational command units—as we call them, although other forces call them basic command units—that work well and provide the local focus. She might need more information about the work of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, because the police are intimately involved in local area network arrangements—which we have pioneered in Wolverhampton—and I think that ultimately there will be more accountability in policing budgets. The devolving of power is already working well in our large police force, so amalgamations in the greater west midlands are driven by the needs of forces such as Warwickshire for the specialist services to which she refers.

Sarah Teather: My point was that such issues should be locally determined. In some areas, it is right and proper that forces work together, but the west midlands is geographically different from the area that would be created by linking Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge, with far greater numbers of people involved.
	Fire services have been the predominant issue in the debate. Ironically, the Conservatives have supported the Fire Brigades Union's line. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has not yet revealed whom she intends to support in the Conservative leadership contest, but perhaps she has given us a little clue today.

Michael Penning: As a Conservative MP and former member of the FBU, I can say that I am proud of my links to the FBU, which does a fantastic job for its members.

Sarah Teather: That is an interesting observation and perhaps evidence of a lurch to the left by the Conservatives.
	As the Minister said, the impetus for fire service reform came from the Bain review, but it focused on the need for more fire prevention, rather than just firefighting, and that can be achieved only by a community-based force. Bain specifically advised against regional reorganisation and instead proposed regional co-operation. He suggested that co-operation could achieve all the benefits without major organisational structure change. However, the Government's response ignored Bain's advice and set out to establish regional fire authorities as part of regional assemblies. Once the wheels came off the plan for elected regional assemblies, the Government ploughed ahead regardless. Had fire services been accountable to elected regional assemblies, that would have dealt with the democratic deficit created by an unelected tax-levying body, but without the democratisation of regional government the major structural reorganisation has little genuine benefit for local people.

Caroline Spelman: I commiserate with the hon. Lady on her present ill health. I have listened carefully to her argument about the breakdown in the logic behind reorganisation. Did she say that her party is consulting on whether it should still be committed to elected regional assemblies, or is it still committed to them? I would be grateful for clarification.

Sarah Teather: We are consulting on what we should do following the north-east referendum. We accept that the proposals on offer were rejected, but many other options are possible. Some form of regional government is necessary to democratise the present systems. That could be achieved in many different ways and I do not wish to prejudge our review by discussing it in detail now. I would be happy to discus the issue in detail with the hon. Lady at some other point.
	The Minister mentioned national resilience, but serious emergencies require serious contingency planning that would, by its very nature, require co-operation between services. Where would the process stop? Does the Minister suggest that it would be worth consolidating all functions into one giant structure, just in case it needs to be run from Downing street? That cannot be the way forward, although I recognise the Government's tendency towards it. Is it necessarily any more resilient to have nine large control centres instead of 46 smaller ones? The impact of taking one centre off-line would be huge.
	There is no perfect solution, but compulsory regional fire control rules out the possibility of co-operation between emergency services. The hon. Members for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) have spoken already about the successful tri-service control centre in Gloucestershire. Would that have to be broken up under the current proposals? It looks as though it would.
	The regionalisation of fire services would break the links with local communities, and the same would be true of policing. We need a fire service that is much more integrated in communities, especially if we want it to deal more with prevention. What about the Divali prevention of fire campaigns that are almost certainly going on up and down the country at present? Should the one in Bradford be run by a city somewhere on the other side of the country? I do not think so. That is not the way to deal with local considerations.

Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister's example of the way in which regional planning works was drawn from London? London is one place, unlike the south-east, as the Department of Health recognises. The Department has offered the Isle of Wight the opportunity to continue to have its own ambulance service, because it realises that the south-east is not simply one place.

Sarah Teather: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There is a tendency to view structures that work in one area as easily transplantable elsewhere. We see that with many of the Government's ideas about city regions in the north. Their ideas might work perfectly well in some areas of the north of England, but they will not transfer well to the south-east or east of the country where the relationship between cities and rural areas is not the same. We have to accept that the one-size-fits-all approach will not deliver the improvements in service delivery that we want. It will certainly not improve democratic accountability.
	There seems to be no obvious logic to the structural reorganisation proposed for ambulance services. The Government seem to have picked a random size for new ambulance trusts that ties in with none of the other tiers of administration in the national health service. Instead of reforming ambulance services into arbitrarily sized organisations, the Government should consider integrating services with hospitals and emergency care. How will it be possible to do anything sensible if trusts are not coterminous with anything already in the system? A modern ambulance service is not just about driving injured people to hospital; it is staffed by highly trained paramedics who increasingly treat casualties at the scene.
	The proposed move will tear a hole in any attempt to connect the ambulance service to the rest of the NHS. Why move to larger authorities? There is no evidence to suggest that it would be more efficient or would save more lives. We have already heard quotes from the chief executive of the Staffordshire ambulance trust, who is extremely concerned. We should listen carefully to people on the ground with experience of running such services who say that a move to larger structures will not help to improve the service to patients.

Kevan Jones: I can give the hon. Lady an excellent example from the north-east, where the North East ambulance service has been in existence for nearly 10 years. It cuts across two strategic health authorities and numerous trusts. In the summer, I had the honour of spending a night shift with the paramedics, who found none of the problems that the hon. Lady is outlining. Furthermore, more money was coming in for new technology, which helped them to do their job.

Sarah Teather: I am sure that the North East ambulance service does an extremely good job, but I return to my earlier point: the fact that something works well in the north-east does not mean that the same structure will work well if it is applied somewhere else.
	The Government are reorganising all our public services, but that makes a mockery of the claim that the new terms of reference for Sir Michael Lyons will deal with all the possible things that might come under local government. By the time he gets around to considering them, there will not be much left for local government to do.
	We are holding the wrong debate; we are talking about structures when we should be talking about accountability. The debate should be about how we can fit structures into our elected organisations and then put them under the control of elected representatives. Our party is conducting a major review of how local services should be delivered and by whom, but at the heart of our thinking will be the principle of accountability. We have learned that when 77.9 per cent. of people vote against something that we want to do, we do not plough ahead and do it regardless. Taking note of those views is accountability. That is what we should do when we are elected and it is something that the Government need to learn.

Nick Raynsford: I declare an interest, as I have recently been invited to take on the chairmanship of the Fire Protection Association—

Rob Marris: Did my right hon. Friend accept?

Nick Raynsford: I have accepted and the position has been approved by the advisory committee on appointments for former Ministers, with the caveat that I should not indulge in the lobbying of Ministers for a year from the time that I ceased to be one. I hope that nothing I say now will be seen as lobbying Ministers.
	I am astonished that the Opposition should table a motion about the emergency services with no reference, let alone a tribute, to the performance of our emergency services who responded so magnificently to the problems that occurred on 7 and 21 July—[Interruption.] I make that comment only about the motion on the Order Paper. I was about to offer an apology to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) because I was unable to be in the Chamber for the first few minutes of her speech as I was at another meeting. She may have corrected that—[Interruption.] I was making the point that the motion setting out the Opposition position made no reference whatever to the performance of the emergency services, and I stand by that.

Caroline Spelman: rose—

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady should listen to this. Even more astonishing is the fact that the Opposition have drawn a veil of silence over the proposals for reorganisation that they touted over the previous three years. How many times can we recall hearing the Opposition criticise our arrangements for enhancing and improving the capacity of our emergency services to cope with whatever might be thrown at them with the continued refrain, "You aren't doing as well as the Americans. You ought to have a department of homeland security."? How many times did Opposition spokesmen tell us to set up a department of homeland security? Why are they now so silent about that? I give way to the hon. Lady and invite her to comment on why the Opposition have forgotten, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the performance of the American department of homeland security, their espousal of such a structure in the UK?

Caroline Spelman: I want to address the accusation that we had not paid tribute to the work of our emergency services. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that he had not been in the Chamber for the whole of my speech but, before he came in, I made the point that at least two Members present had been directly involved and served with the emergency services and I said how much I respected those who put their lives on the line. It is dangerous for the right hon. Gentleman to call into question our sincerity on that point when he was not present. As for the rest of his diatribe, I think he was trying to change the subject. He is a respected specialist on the whole subject of local government and its remit, but I wish that he would save his ire and frustration about what is happening and direct it at his own Front Bench.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Lady's intervention entirely ignored my point, which was that the Opposition motion made no reference to the performance of the emergency services and paid no tribute to them. That is an interesting comment. Secondly, her feeble attempt to skate over her party's commitment to an expensive and unproven reorganisation of the structure for oversight of the emergency services is also interesting—

Mark Harper: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who put that proposition for reorganisation to me many times over the past two years. I look forward to hearing his justification.

Mark Harper: I was not an MP until May this year, so I do not think that I did.
	To refer to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I notice that the Government amendment to our motion pays no particular tribute to our emergency services, so perhaps his criticism of my hon. Friend should be directed at the Treasury Bench.

Nick Raynsford: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. My eyesight is not good and I mistook him for another hon. Member.
	This is an Opposition day debate. It is the Opposition's motion and I stand exactly by what I said. Not only did the motion pay no tribute to the work of the emergency services, or even mention it, but the Opposition have entirely glossed over their misconceived commitment to a major, expensive reorganisation to create a department of homeland security which, as we have seen in the American example, did not perform as well as its advocates on the Conservative Benches might have liked to think it would by comparison with the performance of our emergency services on 7 July, to which my hon. Friend the Minister—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the debate gets—dare I say?—a little heated, I remind all hon. Members that we should be discussing the Opposition motion and the Government amendment.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I want to say a little about the fire service. As the Government amendment rightly highlights, the fire service has been making important progress in achieving reductions in fire deaths and improving safety. That is the overriding objective. The new legislation, which I had the privilege of taking through the House during my time as a Minister, established a new priority of saving lives, as one of the service's key objectives, as my hon. Friend the Minister rightly said. Fire prevention is now absolutely on the agenda as a prime responsibility, something that had not been conceived of when the 1947 legislation was introduced.

Rob Marris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the West Midlands fire service has been doing preventive work for many years, has one of the best records in that respect and is one of the largest fire services in the area? Large fire services can do very good preventive work and I pay tribute to the brothers and sisters in the West Midlands fire service for what they have done.

Nick Raynsford: I wholeheartedly concur with my hon. Friend, who rightly highlights the good work that is being done in a number of fire authorities. Such work is being accelerated as a result of the White Paper, the legislation and the additional funds, to which my hon. Friend the Minister rightly alluded, that are being used to promote fire safety and ensure the greater installation of smoke alarms, particularly in vulnerable people's homes. It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Meriden referred to cuts in expenditure on emergency services. When the Conservative party was in government, the fire service did not have the equipment that it now has to deal with the new dimension of terrorist incidents.

Michael Penning: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Raynsford: I will give way in a moment, but I remind the hon. Gentleman about the underfunding of the fire service in the past. He will know about that only too well, but he will also know that the new dimension programme has been fully funded by the Government.

Michael Penning: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; I ask him to restrain himself.
	As a result, fire authorities are now far better equipped to cope with a range of disasters, including flooding, with high-volume water pumps, and rescuing people from collapsed buildings, with urban search and rescue equipment. They are also getting additional funds to ensure that fire prevention and fire safety work can be given the priority that it deserves. That was not the pattern when the Conservative party was in power, and it is outrageous for the hon. Member for Meriden to suggest that the funding has been cut by a Government who have been fully funding the response to the new pressures on the fire service.

Michael Penning: Perhaps we could talk about cuts today in Hertfordshire. Given the lack of funding, two brand-new appliances will not be required any more because the Government are closing two retained fire stations. Those are cuts today, not cuts eight years ago.

Nick Raynsford: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman makes a great mistake if he goes from the particular to the general. Obviously, there will be changes and it is right that there should be. The old arrangements were inflexible and made it difficult for fire brigades to change the deployment of crews and equipment to meet today's threats. Those arrangements, based on 1940s legislation—he will be familiar with that—emphasised the protection of buildings. Although that is important, we believe that the saving of lives is more important. The new legislation rightly puts the focus on saving lives and fire authorities throughout the country are reviewing their arrangements to put a greater emphasis on that.

Michael Penning: rose—

Nick Raynsford: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to make progress.
	Yes, the result is that there are changes. I have accepted the removal of one appliance from a station in my constituency, having looked carefully at the figures, which show, as the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority demonstrated, that there would be a better prospect of saving lives by moving an appliance from one of the Greenwich stations to Sidcup because today's threats are different from those that existed in the 1940s, when a lot of the provisions were initially put in place. Any good service must seriously consider the need for change to take account of today's pressures and threats. We cannot ossify arrangements based on past patterns. Some change is necessary, but to talk about cuts is nonsense when the Government are increasing funding, as my hon. Friend the Minister has stressed.
	I want to talk about a little more about fire control, because some hon. Members made some misleading comments in their contributions on the issue. The fire control arrangements are designed to ensure that every fire authority in the country has the use of the best modern equipment to ensure that it can deploy resources as effectively as possible to meet whatever risks are faced. The new technology is not a leap into the unknown, as some people have suggested when referring to IT.
	Those who have any doubt about the technology should visit fire brigades such as Norfolk or Merseyside, where it is already used successfully. It allows a lot more than is possible in most other areas. It allows automatic identification of where the call is coming from. In Merseyside, that has now been extended to cover calls from mobile phones, which present an increasing pressure on the service. It also allows the automatic mobilisation of the appliances that are closest placed to respond and ensures that the crew in the cab will automatically receive a printout that identifies the hazards that they might encounter at the site that they are going to. Every fire authority in the country should benefit from those state-of-the-art arrangements. Fire control will ensure that they do.
	It has been suggested that local knowledge will be lost. Such knowledge has not been a major factor for fire control operations for many years since computerised gazetteering was introduced. Even in the existing authorities, it is unrealistic to expect a fire control operator to know the location of every village and town in a county, or every street in London, which already has a region-wide fire control operation. That is not possible. The new technology obviates that need because it presents the operator with a screen showing exactly where the call is coming from and where the appliance best placed to respond is. The red herring about local knowledge should be set aside.
	The other factor, which cannot be set aside, is the huge savings that are possible by introducing the new system across the country, with a smaller number of much more efficient control centres, thus allowing the savings to be ploughed back into fire prevention—exactly the thing that we know will save lives.
	The hon. Member for Meriden looks doubtful, but one of the statistics that I remember best from my period as the Minister responsible for the fire service is that half the people who die in domestic fires are dead before the fire brigade is alerted to the incident. However good they are—they are very good at responding to incidents—and however quickly they get to the site, they cannot save those lives. Prevention is critical if those lives are to be saved. If, as a result of making savings on fire control, some of those resources can be used to put more smoke alarms into vulnerable people's homes and to carry out more fire prevention work in the first place, more lives will saved. This is a sensible policy that is designed to give the best results.

Caroline Spelman: I looked doubtful because I do not see the logic in the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If Norfolk, which he cited, is so successful with new technology, it does not automatically follow that things need to be restructured regionally. We could simply share best practice. He may be happy to lose one of the two appliances that he mentioned, but fire stations have gone from two to one appliance overnight throughout the west midlands. That is a cut.

Nick Raynsford: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is exaggerating and not giving an accurate picture. I considered that argument very carefully, as any hon. Member would when presented with a proposal to remove an appliance, and I was convinced, when I had scrutinised and questioned the authority, that that was the right decision. Hon. Members should do that and not have a knee-jerk reaction and exaggerate, as the hon. Lady has done in implying that appliances are being taken out all over the west midlands. That is simply not the case.
	The Norfolk technology is good, but it did not extend to mobile phones when I saw it. Merseyside has moved on and its technology covers them. Clearly, we need the best modern technology, with the greatest capacity, installed throughout the country, but it would simply not be economic to do so on the basis of the existing 46 control centres. In many cases, they are not organised well to respond. They may have sufficient staff to respond to any possible incident, but many of them will not have much work to do for a lot of the time because of the relatively small volume of calls.
	For example, I looked at the figures for the Isle of Wight and I could see that, on average, a control room operator would expect to deal with probably no more than one incident in the entire shift on which they were on duty, because it is necessary to have sufficient staff on duty at any one time to cope with potential surges. That is simply not economic, and that is why the Isle of Wight has recognised that it cannot go on as an independent fire control centre.
	By contrast, London is already organised on a regional basis and the fire control centre covers a much larger number of calls, so it is operating on a far more cost-effective basis. It gives as good a service, if not a better one, and does so with significant savings that then allow more focus on fire safety. I talk to the chief of the London fire brigade from time to time and he strongly emphasises his service's real commitment to driving down the number of lives lost unnecessarily in fires. That commitment is the result of the Government's policy and of the potential for making savings through an intelligent approach towards facing today's risks.
	I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Meriden and the Opposition motion were among the feeblest that I have come across in the House for a very long time. They indicate thinking that is stuck in the past and that shows no recognition of the failure of their abortive approach to reorganisation and to a department of homeland security. They show no willingness to engage in the serious debate—not the token debate with Opposition motions that are not worth the paper they are written on—about how to improve the fire service, save lives and ensure that we have the best and most effective service.
	I hope that the House will reject the opportunistic Opposition motion and treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). He at least has the benefit of knowing a good deal about this subject and made aspects of his case quite strongly. I would say to him and to the House that I take a pragmatic view of administrative structures; I want structures that work and that can handle and make the best use of modern technology in the interests of my constituents and others. We all move about the country, and we do or do not benefit from the situation in the area in which we happen to be at the time.
	I am in no sense, and never have been, what I would call a visceral anti-regionalist. I confirm the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on the genesis of the original Government office structure. I was Department of Trade and Industry Whip at the time that that was being thought about, and it was very much a matter of co-ordinating the national effort of the various Departments in the regions rather than seeking to take over or administer major aspects of service delivery. Indeed, I pursued that strategy as a Minister in relation to some educational components in the process and later, as an Agriculture Minister, I worked closely with a regional structure. Although such a strategy is not unthinkable, I take odds with it when it brings in large elements of additional bureaucracy and further structures that may not be appropriate and that may dilute the democratic structures in place. My interest is in sensible co-operation to achieve the right technical result, not in fitting the services to a regional template irrespective of the benefit or otherwise. That is what motivated me to participate in the debate, and I wish to make several points to support my view.
	I am genuinely concerned about the nature of the consultation. It is perhaps no good for us as Members of Parliament to get pompous about that, but it is something of an outrage that the major proposals for the fire and ambulance services, the wider health service and the police authorities were not notified to us by communications from Secretaries of State. Indeed, if the proposals were all part of an integrated strategy that the Government wish to pursue, they might at least have told us.
	The problem goes further. I genuinely believe that consultation can be beneficial and that it is sometimes a good idea to ask Members of Parliament, as the primary elected representatives for their constituencies, to participate in the process. That is as much in the Government's interest as it is in ours. I know that the Minister is an entirely reasonable fellow, and I hope that he will want to take some of these points on board.

Philip Hollobone: I arrived back at the House this week to find that I had been sent through the post—I am sure that my hon. Friend has received it too—the latest newspaper from the Northamptonshire police force. Its front page contains the headline "Getting ready for a merger", but that is the first communication that any Northamptonshire MP has received on the subject. We are informed:
	"Northamptonshire Police is working closely with the four other forces in the East Midlands Police Region to respond to the Government's edict".
	The chief constable is reported as saying:
	"These are very difficult times for us all and people throughout the organisation are going to be very worried about their future."
	That entirely reinforces my hon. Friend's point.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and Northamptonshire colleague for making that point. I am delighted that his voice reinforces my argument. That is exactly the concern that we have. It would not have been too difficult for Ministers to have approached us, and it might even have been in their interests to do so.
	Sometimes I wonder whether the Government consult only on the unimportant issues and that the level of consultation, or the time provided for it, is in inverse proportion to the importance of the subject. One of the problems is that we have not really seen a base of evidence, and it might be quite different for the different services. It would be useful to have an overview and independent analysis, not least because of the concerns being expressed powerfully in this debate.
	I wish to make a specific point. I know a little about resilience, because as an 18-year-old I wrote a paper on the subject that was sent to the Home Office in 1961. I suffer gravely from not having a BBC service that is particularly relevant to where I live. I live in Northamptonshire, but receive the service from Oxford and the regional service is from the south, so I see a lot about shipping in the Solent. If I am to be put into an east midlands mould, I will need an east midlands service if there is a difficulty or an emergency. That must be integrated right up to the borders of the services that operate in the area. I mention the point, because I think it is a consideration that the Minister is nodding at.
	The final point of the general considerations that I put to Ministers is my worry at the frenetic pace of change. I am conscious that others wish to speak and that we do not want to extend the debate to cover the whole field of public services, but I will say two words about health provision more generally in a moment. As the Government mature, I notice that they are going through a second or even third cycle of change. In these respects, they now seem to be quickening the pace, because they want to produce solutions or to save money, as colleagues have said. In other cases, the second or third reorganisation merely adds to the confusion of staff and service users alike. I think that it was Petronius who said nearly 2,000 years ago, "Every time that we were just about to get somewhere, they reorganised us and then we had to start the process all over again."

Maria Miller: I would like to add a little depth to this point. I am concerned about how dismissive Ministers and Labour Members have been about the concerns of the Fire Brigades Union. I recently received a delegation from the Hampshire FBU and heard its concerns about regional control rooms in our area and particularly about the effects that they would have on my constituency. It would affect rural areas and lead to the loss of staff between now and when the regional control rooms are introduced. Does my hon. Friend agree that such concerns should not be so readily dismissed?

Tim Boswell: That is precisely the point. Many of us listen to FBU members and talk to watches in fire stations, and we can always learn from that process. I am sure that Ministers will want to pick up the concerns that are being vigorously expressed to my hon. Friend and me. All I am really saying to Ministers is, "Don't push your luck; don't take it too far; and don't rush it. Consult and think about it."
	I wish to expand briefly on that point in relation to the particular services. To pick up my hon. Friend's point, there is still a major problem with the fire services. Major, wrenching and difficult changes are already taking place for fire service provision, and they will be politically difficult as well as difficult for the personnel involved.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who is not in the Chamber, eloquently explained the problems of Rushden fire station during a Westminster Hall debate yesterday. We have comparable problems in Daventry, because there is a move towards more part-time staffing to cover the station's work, which is causing considerable worry. If one superimposes the modernisation of control systems and the possible ultimate merger into a much wider regional structure on top of that, it is a matter of concern.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) clearly expressed some of the concerns in Northamptonshire about the police. Some of those concerns are practical, and I thought that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made something of a point about the matter. Even within the shire structure we do not always have perfection.
	It might amuse the House to hear that I was recently in one of my local police stations when a lorry driver who wanted to make a delivery came in. He said, "Where's Great Central Way?" I was a bit distracted because I was waiting for an appointment to discuss local policing matters, but when I became conscious that the chap at the desk was having difficulty, I said, "Why don't you try Woodford Halse? That's about 10 miles away." Of course that was exactly where the delivery was for—no one had spotted that the destination was not in the town itself.
	I can translate my point to a consideration of ambulances. There was a difficult case recently involving a person who was injured in a ploughing match that was taking place in a field on the Warwickshire-Northamptonshire county boundary. Of course the judge who went to the assistance of the person who had fallen did not know the postcode of the location, although he did have a mobile phone—that is relevant to our consideration. He telephoned for assistance, but the terrestrial ambulances of both counties failed to get there and the air ambulance had to be brought in. However, the air ambulance is already served co-operatively by the counties of Warwickshire and Northamptonshire.

William Cash: I am following my hon. Friend's remarks with great interest. Is he aware that there is strong resistance to the proposed merger of the ambulance service in Staffordshire, which came up during Prime Minister's questions? The real question is whether that will be effectively opposed by Staffordshire Labour Members, although I and others certainly oppose it, as we have shown in the early-day motion that we tabled yesterday.

Tim Boswell: It will be interesting to find out. I shall watch the situation, especially now that we have more varied representation in Northamptonshire. I shall refer to ambulance services in a moment.
	To conclude my remarks on the police authority, I do not want it to be suggested that I am not interested in democratic control. We have a police authority and there has recently been a change of administration in the county council at county hall. The question of who would control and assume the chair of the police authority was a real political issue, but at least it was determined locally—as it should be—rather than regionally.
	I made an intervention during the Minister's speech about the police. Their relationship with fire control rooms and, above all, the interoperability of services—I have some constituency involvement with Airwave—should be carefully watched. We need to ensure that the system works and Ministers should not over-claim what they are doing.
	My main worries relate to the health agenda, on which I shall speak a little more widely. We must examine the more general consideration of the reorganisation of the national health service. I know that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), will wind up the debate. A strong functional primary care trust covers most of my area and I have been engaged for some time in fairly delicate negotiations to insert the other part of my area, which is brigaded with Oxfordshire—across the county boundary—into that trust, so it is extraordinary that after we appeared to be getting somewhere and consultation was offered, the whole thing is now up in the air. We might well end up with a county-wide trust, although we do not know that yet. We have had no news from the Department of Health, so we have had to work things out for ourselves, although I have written to the Secretary of State for Health on the matter.
	These things are not cost-free. My wife and I are involved with the re-provision of Brackley cottage hospital. My wife is a trustee and I am on one of the working groups. The matter might be worth an Adjournment debate one day, because it has gone on for 15 years. Every time that we seem to be getting somewhere, the NHS reorganises itself and the whole thing has to be started from scratch.
	The situation is especially vicious in relation to provision for our ambulance services. I know about the quality of Staffordshire's service and the Minister will be aware of the high quality of the Two Shires ambulance trust—my domestic NHS ambulance trust—covering Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire. It is a three-star trust of long standing that is run extremely well. It is almost the one service in my constituency for which we are not on the edge of things, as it is headquartered in the village of Deanshanger. Although that is more or less in the centre of the trust's area and at the edge of my constituency, at least it is in my constituency, instead of a substantial distance away.
	The trust has worked especially well and should not be reorganised only for the reason that Ministers have decided that everything must be regionalised, with one bit going to south-east Buckinghamshire and another bit going to the east midlands. The trust would have to be dissolved before it could be reconstituted, so the operation would be doubly wrenching.
	It would be likely that the service for my area would be reconstituted into a trust with fewer stars, or a less good record, so there is extreme concern about the process, which is compounded by worries about the speed of implementation. I attended the trust's annual meeting at which its senior management and chairman were under the impression that it might be asked to merge from next April, or that a shadow committee would be established with the aim of an implementation date not far into the future. That raises practical concerns about the compatibility of radios and equipment carried on vehicles, and, of course, control functions. Above all, we cannot have a situation in which people in my constituency or those of other hon. Members do not get the service that they deserve simply because the component bits of the service do not talk to each other, which is the fundamental worry set out in the motion.
	My underlying concern is that decision making is being shifted from someone who is usually democratically accountable—or at any rate physically accessible in my county town—to a more distant, less accountable and less familiar regional body. It might be useful if I share with the House something of my personal situation, which is matched by that of many of my constituents.
	I have lived in a village called Aynho for nearly 40 years. It is in the extreme south-west of both my constituency and Northamptonshire, so we are virtually the end point of the east midlands. For example, we are at the end point of the electricity grid network in the east midlands. It is a long way from the village to Cleethorpes. It is actually quite a long way from the village to Nottingham. My village is 60 miles from the House, but 100 miles from Nottingham. I am not sure that I would wish to substitute control from Northampton—or even London—with control from Nottingham. In fairness to the Minister, some of the journey from my village to Nottingham runs through my constituency. When one reaches the northern boundary of my constituency, one is halfway there, but Nottingham is still a long way away.
	Let me explain how things work operationally. There are four postal regions in my constituency: first, Northampton, which is in the east midlands; secondly, Coventry, which is in the west midlands; thirdly, Milton Keynes—we have had real problems with BT employees not being able to recognise the post codes of people from there who ring in, because they go through to the wrong control room; and, fourthly, Oxfordshire. I live 300 yd within my constituency and have an Oxfordshire postcode, as have about 20 per cent. of my constituents. Oxfordshire is in the south-east, as is Milton Keynes. There are huge operational difficulties, including those that relate to the focus of operations. I touched on some of those. My area is not Greater London, a unitary or the west midlands. The pattern is complex and dispersed. People already live at great and extended distances from services.
	There is something else to consider. We formed part of the Deputy Prime Minister's expansion plans and growth areas under the Milton Keynes and south midlands study, but that involves three regions—the south-east, the east midlands and eastern. Whatever Ministers come up with has to be sensitive to such considerations.
	My other access route is to go from Milton Keynes to Crick in my constituency, which is a 25-minute drive down the old Roman road of Watling street. I move effortlessly from the south-east area of influence to the west midlands. Again, no regional template is sensitive to that. We have held the line of having an element of county control and involvement, although even that is sometimes distant. However, the situation is uneasy. My fear is that the drive for regionalisation or centralisation will make it worse.
	The irony is that I have the great privilege and delight to live in the middle of England in a very pleasant area, yet my constituents and I face the paradox of also living on the edge of every service. They are uneasy about that and, frankly, increasingly alarmed, concerned and fed up.

Ronnie Campbell: My constituency is in the south of Northumberland and bridges on to the conurbations of Tyneside. At least 80,000 people live there. The next-door constituency of Wansbeck has about the same number. This part of Northumberland is fairly well populated compared with the rest, which is sparsely populated.
	The county council and the chief fire officer have decided not merely to withdraw fire pumps, but to close fire stations. The proposal is to close two fire stations in my area that have been in existence for years. The Cramlington station covers the new town, which is a big area. It is on the edge of the town for the people to call on its services at any time. The old town of Blyth has a population of at least 39,000, and its fire station is also to close. There will be no retained fire pumps in those areas. Instead, they will be five miles upland in Wansbeck.
	The plan is also to close the fire station at Morpeth, which has about 27,000 people. The station is in the town itself. Ashington fire station will close, too. It is on the edge of the town, which has about 26,000 people, if Newbiggin by the Sea and Bedlington are included. However, the chief fire officer, Mr. Hessler, says that he will build two state-of-the-art fire stations by the private finance initiative. We need to do our sums on PFI to see whether we save money or not. What we have come up with is that we will not save money and that the scheme will cost the council tax payers big time.
	Never mind that, though, because Mr. Hessler is going to build the two big fire stations. One will be out in the country in Pegswood, which will cover Morpeth, Ashington, Newbiggin by the Sea and Bedlington and the other will be five miles outside my constituency to cover my 80,000 constituents. The idea is to regionalise the fire service and then to introduce a Bill to privatise it. That is the motive. I could say that the Tories will not privatise it, but I think that they will. It is a big worry.
	Many years ago, when I was a young councillor, a guy was put in charge of the Northumberland ambulance service. Laurie Caper closed all the ambulance stations around Blyth Valley and Ashington, except for a couple of big ones. All the ambulances were put in those two stations. At times, they could not get through the traffic to the stations and response times were extended. Years later, instead of billeting ambulances somewhere on a roadside, which the ambulance service did for a long time—the ambulances were told where to wait for a call—it decided to put them in the fire stations in Blyth, Cramlington and so on. It served a purpose because we got a fire station back, but that is all up in the air now. Where will the ambulance service go in Northumberland? It is a big worry.
	The Government say that it is up to the county council. As far as they are concerned, it is in charge and they have nothing to do with it. I have sent the Minister a letter and a map outlining the problem. Response times will increase. Perhaps the chief fire office is going to put two jet-propelled rockets on the side of the fire engines to get them to emergencies in Blyth quicker.
	We are losing out. Hundreds have signed a petition in Blyth because people say, "Wait a minute. Our fire station looks after 39,000." That may not be many compared with other constituencies. Hon. Members should tell me whether I am getting a bit of luxury. Is it acceptable for one or two fire appliances to cover 100,000 people? That is what we have had in the south-east of Northumberland.
	On top of that, Mr. Hessler wants to cut 28 full-time firemen as part of the regionalisation. Those will not be redundancies, but natural wastage. He says, "But behold. We are going to have retained firemen." Well, that is all right. We know what retained firemen do. However, a member of the Fire Brigades Union told me last week that they have retained firemen in Ponteland, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). An incident happened, but the retained firemen could not get to it because they were off working somewhere else. The fire engine from Blyth had to go all the way up to Ponteland to fight the incident. We are closing stations, removing pumps and getting rid of full-time firefighters. We are expected to rely on retained firemen, but we cannot because they do other jobs. We must look at that problem.
	I do not have a problem with other aspects of what the Government are doing. I understand that we need to modernise, but we cannot take vital services away from the public. It is always dodgy because if they are used to them being there, they feel safe. The fire service does a lot of other work, such as putting in fire alarms. Not so long ago it put a sprinkler into my mother's house. That is good and should be encouraged.
	The recent national audit of Northumberland fire brigade gave it ratings of either excellent or good. It did not get fair or poor on anything. Although that service was excellent it was cut, and there will be only two fire stations. I would like to know what the Minister thinks about that. When he digs out my letter—it has been in his office for three weeks—he should investigate the situation. He should not rely on the chief fire officer, who will produce a biased report, as he did at the recent public meeting, but should seek the opinion of the Fire Brigades Union. I attended that public debate in New Hartley, and the chief fire officer lost hands-down. If I was not convinced before I went to the meeting I was when I left, because the FBU made a good case. Northumberland county council is making a grave mistake, and I urge Hessler to go back to where he came from—Noddyland, where he produced his Noddy policy.

Simon Burns: May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for giving us the opportunity to debate this extremely important issue, which is causing such grave concern to many of our constituents? I suspect that it worries not just constituents of Opposition Members but those of Government- supporting Members. I listened to the Minister with great care but without surprise. He made a fluent defence of a policy that I believe is indefensible. He sought to be constructive, and explained why he genuinely believes that the Government are doing the right thing to improve the services.
	It is a pity that I cannot say the same of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather). In the two years since she has become a Member of Parliament I have not had the experience—I choose my words carefully—of having to listen to one of her speeches.I certainly hope that I do not have to listen to another one in the next two years. With all the arrogance of immaturity, she typified the problems that the Liberal Democrats have experienced since the general election. They do not have a clue about who they are going to attack—the Conservatives or the Government—so they try dishonestly to grub up votes to enhance their political position. In typical Liberal Democrat fashion, therefore, the hon. Lady compromised—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Gentleman to order and ask him to address his remarks to the Opposition motion and the Government amendment.

Simon Burns: I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Lady compromised by deciding to disagree with the motion and the Government amendment. She sought, in an extremely cheap way, to attack the Conservative decision to support the FBU, to which the motion refers, for trying to stop regionalisation of control centres. I have to tell the hon. Lady that in the grown-up world real people with depth and maturity support the point of view they believe in, whoever expresses it. We will support the FBU if we believe that its cause is right. We will support an improved service of fire protection for our constituents if that means opposing regionalisation. We do not blow in the wind and we do not take a view because we think that it might enhance our popularity. We take a view because we believe that it is right and is in the best interests of the people who send us here every four or five years.
	I have grave concerns about the Government proposals. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument that they will save money that can be reinvested in the service to improve it for our constituents. I believe that the proposals are crude, and are part of an overall agenda for regionalisation. The money that will be saved will not necessarily be reinvested pound for pound in the fire services or the ambulance service. It will go into the Chancellor's depleted coffers to help tackle the growing economic crisis in the public finances. My county of Essex has a population of 1.5 million, and is one of the most densely populated areas in the country. We are extremely fortunate, as we have an excellent fire service, and I pay tribute to the dedicated men and women who work day in, day out to protect us and provide the security and safety that all citizens deserve.
	The system works. The control centre is located in Essex, and the people who work in it are extremely familiar with the county. They can do their job to the highest standard, and that is what the service should offer. If it is to be submerged into an eastern region including Suffolk, Norfolk and perhaps Northamptonshire and Hertfordshire, that quality of service, local knowledge and the ability to respond effectively and efficiently to calls for help will be diminished because the area covered will be too great. My motto has always been "If it ain't broke don't try to fix it." I urge the Government to follow that motto, even at this late stage. They should display a little more humility. The Minister knows what he is talking about, as he has intimate knowledge of the fire services, having worked for them. That is unusual, however, and I believe that the policy was dreamed up and imposed by civil servants in Whitehall to fit a wider agenda of regionalisation and to try to save money on the side.
	Essex ambulance service, which is first-rate, is experiencing similar problems. It has an extremely good chief executive who is sensitive to the county's changing needs and demands, and who will make sure that the service and its resources are used to maximum effect so that ambulances are available to respond to accidents, to perform other functions and to offer an excellent service to the people of Essex, including my constituents. However, it faces the melting pot, because there are proposals to regionalise it. If the argument is that there are other ambulance services in the eastern region that are not as efficient and effective as that service, it is not right that all the services should be merged and brought down to the lowest common denominator. They should all be brought up to the highest standard. However, it is not clear that that will be achieved by putting them all together in a single mammoth organisation.
	I am not making a party political point, because there have been local government reorganisations under Governments of all persuasions. Some of those reorganisations were motivated by the tenet that bigger is better but after the ensuing problems and upheavals, and given the grievances of people who felt detached from the services they were using, it was recognised that that was not the right approach. As a result, the clock was turned back, and people sought to return to the original arrangements. If the Government are determined to pursue their proposals to the bitter end, I fear that they will destroy an efficient, effective service. They will not be here in a few years' time to make the decisions, but we will have to pick up the pieces and reverse the process by trying to return to the original service that met people's needs.
	In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden for securing today's debate, which is our only meaningful opportunity to debate the issue on behalf of our constituents on the Floor of the House. Both Ministers on the Front Bench are eminently reasonable, and when they are on their own and are not being bullied or pressurised by their political peers and civil servants, they should think again about this debate and be man and woman enough to admit that maybe they have not got it completely right and that maybe the policy is not necessarily the right way forward. They should be prepared to be magisterial and think again, and my constituents would be extremely grateful if they were to do so.

John McDonnell: As secretary of the FBU parliamentary group, I refer hon. Members to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I do not object to hon. Members on both sides of the House relating views that they may have heard from FBU members.
	As an aside, the quality of speeches, including the speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and the intervention by the Minister, has been high.
	I thank the Government for the way in which they have drafted the amendment, because I have spent this week looking for something that I can support—I can support the amendment, provided that the ministerial winding-up speech does not contradict it.
	All hon. Members agree with the outline business case statement that the existing arrangements for delivering core services, including call handling and dispatch functions, within the fire service are perceived to be excellent, and almost every hon. Member who has spoken has congratulated the staff and the service on how they currently operate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) has related the strength of feeling after 7 July about the excellent performance of our emergency services in London.
	If we are to move forward, we must ensure that we do so carefully and that we take the professionals with us. The outline business case urges caution:
	"There is no other example of a regional service being provided in this way."
	The reform is among the most novel ever seen in this country, and it is important that we get the history right. It is true that the Bain report did not recommend regionalisation, and it is also true that Mott Macdonald made two recommendations—its first recommendation included 27 centres; its second recommendation included nine centres. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich can correct me, if I am wrong, but I thought that Mott Macdonald's first recommendation was for 27 centres.

Nick Raynsford: I cannot recall the precise number. My hon. Friend has implied that the recommendation is not supported by experience. Will he accept—I am sure that he will—that London already has a regional control centre? It provides an extremely good service compared with some of the smaller services outside London, which would offer an improved service if they were to achieve London's cost-effectiveness.

John McDonnell: Of course I accept that point, and in my experience the service in London is very good. However, the business case points out the lack of co-ordination across all services at the regional structural level. The proposals are novel because they will bring together all services within the regional structure.
	Over time, successive Governments have received different advice on the matter, and we must address the basic questions. Will the proposal work? Does it have the confidence of the people whom we will require to deliver the service? Will the reform be cost-effective? If it is not cost-effective, what is the fall-back position?
	The business case states that the reform is a "high risk" venture. It assesses the risk of
	"delay or even total project failure"
	as "high", with a "very high" impact if the project fails. Why does it draw that conclusion? Although the project is not unique, novel or innovative, the business case points out that
	"the recent history of delivering IT/change projects in the public sector has demonstrated a less than 50 per cent. success rate."
	The business case addresses the point that the scheme's high IT content may bring it close to failure. Scepticism at such an early stage is constructive, because it means that we must address the issues.
	Does the project command the confidence of the professionals themselves? The FBU's view does not require reiteration, because we have heard it from both sides of the House. Front-line firefighters are deeply sceptical about whether the scheme will work, about the cost savings and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) has said, about whether it will lead to privatisation. No matter what assurances the Government make, we must accept the firefighters' concerns.
	What about the organisations on the ground which were consulted about the business case? I have a copy of the report on the views of the regional management boards that was sent to Ministers. I am not sure whether I should have this report, because I am not sure whether the business case has been produced. I do not know whether I might be arrested under the new terrorism legislation, but let us hope that whatever the Home Secretary is drafting today, it does not concern the leakage of documents.
	Yorkshire and Humberside regional management board said that it
	"does not accept that the OBC"—
	the business case—
	"as currently presented, is achievable financially and practically",
	and it called
	"upon ODPM to withdraw the present proposals and the OBC and to re-consult".
	The East of England regional management board was concerned that the business case was unable
	"to provide any financial information that related to individual fire authorities."
	The East Midlands regional management board was concerned
	"about some of the assumptions on which the national OBC is based".
	The West Midlands regional management board was concerned because there was
	"far too little detail, particularly relating to financial matters, for any commitment to be made at this stage."
	The list goes on and on. The South East regional management board stated that
	"issues affecting the success and affordability of this project as well as the statutory responsibilities . . . are drawn to the attention of the ODPM's fire control team".
	The South West regional management board bluntly indicated that it was unable to accept the business case. Gloucestershire fire and rescue authority was
	"unable to support the OBC".
	Somerset county council stated:
	"the Outline Business Case has not been made on the basis of the information provided."
	Dorset fire and rescue authority stated that it was
	"not satisfied that deliverability, affordability or value for money have been demonstrated in the Outline Business Case."
	Cornwall county council stated:
	"The Outline Business Case is not accepted".
	And Avon fire and rescue authority stated:
	"We cannot support this Outline Business Case."
	I must say that the North East regional management board continued to support the project, to which the Government's response was, "Noted with thanks".
	The business case makes it clear that neither the front-line firefighters nor the regional management boards, who must deliver the project, were convinced by the argument. I worry that if they were not convinced, then the proposals will not be successful, and that the lack of confidence in the deliverability of the project will undermine our assurance to our constituents that the Government are providing the necessary services to protect their safety and the lives of their families.
	There are genuine concerns about costs. Some of the figures about savings that the Government have quoted over time have also come into dispute. My understanding is that in June the estimated cost of the project stood at £988 million.

Jim Fitzpatrick: indicated assent.

John McDonnell: I am grateful for that confirmation.
	The Minister has said that the savings will be £20 million a year. In that case, how many years of savings will be required on the basis of the total project cost? My understanding is that the savings that the Government have identified do not take into account the initial investment made up front by the Government. A whole range of other financial details have been questioned by the regional management boards. At the moment, the £20 million-a-year savings look fragile against the initial investment.
	That leads on to another concern. If these savings are achieved, where will the money be found if there is a lack of confidence and therefore cost overruns? There are two options—increases in the council tax or cuts in the fire service. I cannot see the Treasury acceding to any additional Government subsidy on such a Government project, given that it has been fairly brutal to other departmental projects that have not delivered the goods.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these matters. There is legitimacy in some of the concerns that were expressed initially. Obviously, the world has moved on for many people.
	On savings, we are putting the money up front to build the new regional control centres. If we did not, we would still have to spend a lot of money on modernising the existing centres. The additional cost is £74 million. The overall cost is £988 million. The savings will come after the end of the project. I will write to my hon. Friend to explain the detail, and put a copy in the Library for other colleagues.

John McDonnell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would be extremely grateful if he could include the detail on whether the costs exclude depreciation, full capital costs, migration costs, the cost of buildings maintenance rehabilitation, the cost of patching up the current system until the new one comes online, and the write-off costs for the existing system. That would give us the opportunity of having an honest and clear discussion about what the overall cost burden will be.
	My anxiety is this. We had a debate this week about another major project—the third runway at Heathrow. Very sensibly, the Government have undertaken an assessment of the overall implications of the development of that project, which will be followed by the test of a peer review—that is, an independent assessment—of the proposals.
	If the Government are convinced of their case, we need to take with us the professionals who will deliver the service. It therefore behoves the Government to have an independent review of the project very quickly and to report back to the House, or at least to have some form of peer review: an independent assessment that we can discuss and which—I agree with the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell)—we can then consult upon. We must give our constituents time to have the debate. So far, many of us feel that we have been excluded from it. Certainly, the FBU does, as do many of the regional management boards who are anxious about the proposals.
	It is a shame that the proposals were announced during the recess. I understood the reason for that, given such a lengthy recess, but I did not support it. It should have happened before the recess to enable us to have a proper debate. Moreover, there should have been a full ministerial statement to debate instead of a patchwork of amendments.
	I appeal to the Government to take a breathing space in which we can stand back. They should establish an independent review and engage in full consultation, so that if we move forward we do so on an agreed basis. The issue is too important to allow it to become a party political dispute.

James Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and to find myself agreeing with so much of what he said. No one would accuse me of being a fellow traveller with the Fire Brigades Union, but this is the second time on which I find myself campaigning alongside it. We recently campaigned together to prevent the much unwanted privatisation of the defence fire service, and I am glad to say that jointly we were able to persuade the Government to back off. I hope that on this occasion, too, we and the FBU will be able to persuade the Government to back off from proposals that are demonstrably unwelcome to ordinary people and throughout the fire service.
	No county in England is as good an example of stealth regionalisation as our county of Wiltshire. We have heard today from many hon. Friends and Labour Members who feel that they are being regionalised unwittingly. In Wiltshire, we have an added conundrum. It is only two years since Her Majesty the Queen came to Devizes to open the state-of-the-art joint control service centre—the latest thing. One could phone into it for the fire service, police and ambulance and they would all turn up in good time. There are strong arguments for that. I personally was rather opposed, because it meant job losses in my constituency, in Chippenham, but I was persuaded none the less that it was the state of the art. The Government told us that the system was to be spread out across the nation. It cost £2.5 million to set up this beautiful new building, and there were significant difficulties in getting it going, but after much fighting the Government finally forced it through.
	What is to happen now? All that state-of-the-art, new Labour so-called fantastic new service is to be swept away by three changes. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced the other day that it is going to do away with the fire control centre in Devizes and replace it with a remote, and, no doubt, much bigger one in Taunton—presumably at enormous cost. The Minister might like to respond to a detailed point, namely, that the lease on the building in Devizes runs until 2014, and the first escape date in the contract is 2012. If the contract is broken through the removal of the fire service from the control centre, the Government will face a substantial penalty clause. Will the Minister confirm whether the £988 million cost that we heard about includes the gigantic cost that will be involved in breaching that contract? I imagine that the same will apply to Gloucestershire, where a similar centre is being set up.
	Next, we are told that because Wiltshire ambulance service is not as good as it ought to be, although it seems pretty good to me, it is to be amalgamated with Gloucestershire, which is apparently first class—that presumably means that there is a risk that we might be averaging down rather than up—and with something called the Avon ambulance service. I seem to recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) abolished Avon some 10 or 15 years ago. Why on earth we still have something called Avon ambulance service, and why it should be amalgamated with the excellent Wiltshire ambulance service, I cannot imagine.
	That brings me on to a side curiosity. It seems like no time at all since I sat in the modest little health authority headquarters in Devizes, where I was told by the excellent chairman of the Wiltshire health authority that it was no longer big enough. The Wiltshire health authority was to be done away with, to be replaced with primary care groups, which became primary care trusts. Then a thing called the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority was established, although I cannot imagine what the heck it is supposed to be for. Now we hear that all the primary care trusts are to be brought together so that we end up with a body that is identical to the Wiltshire health authority. Sitting on top of that, we have—I went to visit it during the recess—a huge office, with hundreds of people employed in it, called the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire strategic health authority. Nobody knows what on earth it does or what it is for, but I could not find a place in the car park because of all the BMWs parked there. Hundreds of civil servants were sitting in that great office doing who knows what. We now have the Wiltshire health authority just as it was when I became an MP eight years ago, but with a fat layer of bureaucracy on top of it. That is precisely what would happen if we allowed the so-called regionalisation to go ahead. It would save no money and mean only a gigantic increase in bureaucracy.
	The fire service has been pulled out—it is going to Taunton. Apparently, the ambulance service will be pulled out. It is said that we are not yet considering a regional ambulance control centre, but when I saw the chief executive during the recess, he would not give me a guarantee that it was not a logical consequence. We may well end up with something called the Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire call centre.

Adam Afriyie: I recently visited the Royal Berkshire ambulance trust. It has all the star ratings and is in a fabulous place. It appears that there is a plan to combine it with others in a regional centre. When something is working well and people are motivated and committed to it, what is the point of risking it, with life-threatening consequences?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The only reason for doing such a thing is an ideological determination that big is beautiful. Labour loves reorganisation, hierarchies, structures and committees. We like good delivery of first-class services locally. My hon. Friend's point brings me to proposals about the police service.
	In Wiltshire, we have the best police service in England, in the sense that our detection rate is extremely high and we have one of the lowest crime rates. Our proudest boast is that no murder has gone undetected in the county since the police service was set up in 1834. I believe that it was the first county police service to be established by my predecessor, Mr. Peel.
	What do we have now? We are talking about doing away with the excellent Wiltshire police service because the service is apparently not big enough to cover anti-terrorism and all the other matters that the Minister mentioned. Surely we can get around that problem. Four officers in the Wiltshire police service deal with anti-terrorism. Surely they could happily co-operate with the four in Gloucestershire, the four in Dorset and the four in Somerset, without the proposed gigantic structural reorganisation. We could find ways of co-operating across borders.
	I want the Minister to deal with a specific point about cross-border co-operation. If there is to be useful cross-border co-operation between services, whether fire, police or ambulance, why does it have be based on the Government's pre-set regional structure? For example, in Dorset, surely it would be reasonable for the police services of Bournemouth and Poole, which effectively constitute one built-up area, to co-operate. The one thing that the Government have laid out plainly is that the borders of the pre-set regions must be adhered to. There must be no cross-border co-operation. If the police in Bournemouth are caught co-operating with the police in Poole, my goodness, there would be all sorts of trouble. The Home Secretary would be down on them like a ton of bricks. However, if the police in Bournemouth co-operate with the police in the Scilly Isles, that counts as a good scheme according to the new Labour notion.
	If we are considering the convenience of delivering emergency services, surely we should examine the geographical areas in which it is convenient to deliver them. If the south-west of England exists, it is Devon, Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. The notion that one can go from Tewkesbury to the Scilly Isles and from Cricklade to Poole and call all that the south-west—if one stuck a drawing pin in Tewkesbury and turned the map around, the Scilly Isles would land in the city of Glasgow—is ridiculous. We in north Wiltshire ain't in the south-west of England. We may be in Wessex and the west country but we do not want to be in the south-west. We do not want our police service to be done away with in favour of some generalised south-west police force.
	If we add to the regionalisation of the fire service that of the ambulance service, the police service, an astonishing series of changes in the health service, which constitute a form of regionalisation, and the nationalisation of some other county services, it amounts to the abolition of county government in England. It is no less than stealth abolition of our counties.
	If one is interested in accountability, localism and allowing local people to determine the sort of services that they want, the best possible structure in which to do that is the county. The Labour party may not like it but I love the county of Wiltshire and I pledge to do what I can to fight to prevent its abolition by the mob opposite.

Mark Harper: It is noticeable that the Government are somewhat lacking Back-Bench support.
	The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) has left the Chamber but he made some cheap remarks about whether this was an appropriate place to hold a debate. The Floor of the House of Commons is entirely the right place for the debate. If it were not for my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), we would not be having the debate and discussing matters of such great concern to our constituents.
	My first point is about regions. As someone who represents a rural constituency in a rural county, I was struck by the fact that many of the contributions from the Government's supporters were London-centric. Providing emergency services in a densely populated capital city is different from providing them in a sparsely populated rural county. Clearly, it will be more expensive to provide the services in a rural county because of travelling times, the quality of the roads, response times and so on. That is evident to anyone who examines the matter.
	I support my hon. Friends' comments about the sense of the regions and whether it would be sensible to allow co-operation across regional boundaries. The Forest of Dean constituency is on the Welsh border and on the border between the south-west region and the west midlands region. If there is to be co-operation, there is a great deal of sense in allowing it to happen across regional borders when that is appropriate. Moving to a regional structure appears to make that more difficult rather than easier.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made a point about computer systems and postcoding. In my constituency, several postcodes cross borders, especially the Welsh border. Several organisations, including Government organisations such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, are sloppy about their use of postcode information. Many of my constituents who live on the Gloucestershire side of the border and have Newport postcodes find that Government organisations assume that an NP postcode means that they are in Wales and they get bilingual documents. That is not a heartening example. If Government organisations are sloppy about their use of data, it is not a serious problem when someone who does not want one gets a bilingual driving licence, but it is tremendously serious if a fire response takes a long time and lives are consequently lost. I ask the Minister to ensure that, whatever happens with technology, some of the problems that affect borders are tackled and that the technology can cope with that and does not make assumptions about postcoding and geographical locations.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the nine regional control centres will operate seamlessly because they will all have national geographical mapping data. If a problem occurred with one of the centres, any other could fill in the gap. Postcodes should not therefore have any effect.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for that reassurance.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) mentioned the Lyons review of local government. Now that it is considering local government functions as well as funding, and given the Government's proposals on regionalisation of emergency services, it is worth asking whether the Lyons review will examine regionalising other local government services. Hon. Members from all parties will perhaps be concerned about that.
	I shall consider fire control briefly because I would rather spend more time on the police. As has already been said, we have an excellent tri-service control centre in Gloucestershire. I had the opportunity to visit it in the summer. In a serious incident such as the bombings in London on 7 July, the importance of all the emergency services working seamlessly was apparent. A control centre model whereby all three services and their senior and chief officers are located in close proximity appears to me, as a layman, a good model for providing seamless co-ordination. The Minister said in his response to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that he would deal with the reasons for the Government's view that the tri-service model was inappropriate. I may have missed the reply but if he did not deal with it, perhaps the matter could be tackled in the winding-up speech.

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman might know that his comments about the tri-service model are supported by the Audit Commission report produced in July 2005, which listed the establishment of the tri-service centre in Gloucester as a key strength of the fire and rescue service and stated:
	"The Fire Authority is consistently providing value for money, with one of the lowest costs per head of population in the country. When compared to its family group, best value indicators show there is good performance in many areas . . . There has been notable achievement against its high-level strategic objectives including the new Tri-Service Centre".
	The following month, abolition was announced. Is not that particularly galling?

Mark Harper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention, which leads me to my next point on the merger proposals for the police service.
	The report produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which has driven the Government's thinking on this issue, makes the point that small rural forces are not very good, on the whole, at dealing with level 2 criminality—serious and organised crime—and at responding to terrorism. However, I understand that Her Majesty's inspectorate's last report on Gloucestershire found that
	"Gloucestershire Constabulary has a comprehensive Level 2 capability, including surveillance . . . dedicated source handlers and force intelligence best practice".
	Indeed, the National Crime Squad has adopted Gloucestershire's profiles as best practice, and has also said that Gloucestershire has been able to deal successfully with terrorism investigations, notably the recent Badat case.
	It is entirely laudable and sensible to have more co-operation and collaboration between forces, and it would be much better if that were done on a bottom-up basis whereby forces collaborated regardless of regional boundaries, where it made sense to do so. It does not seem sensible to impose a one-size-fits-all, top-down model.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does he acknowledge that police forces co-operated in respect of the Fairford peace protesters—a very big policing operation? Gloucestershire police managed the operation with a range of other forces. My hon. Friend referred to a big terrorist operation that Gloucestershire police carried out, and they also conducted the Fred West murder investigation. Some of the very biggest crimes are being perfectly ably handled by the Gloucestershire police force. There is no reason whatever for it to be merged into a bigger force.

Mark Harper: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent intervention. Last week, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) launched a petition for the people of Gloucestershire to sign to support the retention of our local police force.
	I know that my hon. Friend will agree—he and I represent rural parts of the county—that we already have a problem ensuring that rural areas get a sufficient level of police cover, response and attention in comparison with the more urban parts of the county. If the Gloucestershire force were to be merged with, for example, Avon and Somerset police, which covers the large conurbation of Bristol, that pressure would intensify and the level of policing in rural areas would be under threat.
	It is worth noting that, since 1997, the level of Government grant to pay for policing would, by itself, have led to a reduction in the number of officers in the Gloucestershire constabulary. The increase in the number of officers has all been funded by the increase in the council tax precept. Local people are paying for the extra officers, and my constituents expect to get their fair share of local policing. If we move towards a much larger regional force, we would be much less likely to get that support in our rural areas.
	It is essential that all our public services co-operate and collaborate across borders, and that we do not allow those borders to become artificial barriers to best practice. Cross-border co-operation is the best way forward, rather than trying to set up templates from the centre and to impose them on local services in a short period of time. Voluntary cross-border collaboration is the model that I would recommend.

Michael Penning: It is not often that a new Member can stand up in the House and be proud to talk about something that he knows about historically. I declare my interest as a former fireman and a former member of the Fire Brigades Union, of which I am very proud.
	Being a former member of the FBU does not mean that I have not had as many battles with it as the Minister has had—or perhaps the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who has now returned to his place—over the years. As a fireman in Essex, I battled long and hard with the union about the draconian way in which it operated, and told it that it desperately needed to modernise its position in relation to a modern fire service. It was with some pleasure that, during the strike—which I was sad to see happen—I wrote in the Daily Mail about some modern ideas for the fire service. I said quite openly that the fire service and the FBU could move on only if the dinosaurs who led the heroes—the firemen of this country—were removed from office at the top of the FBU. I am pleased to see that most of them have now been removed. I am sure that I shall get similar hate mail to the kind that I got last time, for making that comment again today.
	The Minister knows that I have deep reservations— I have talked to him about this privately and publicly —about the regionalisation of the fire service. I was pleased to discover that his office is next to mine in the Palace. I know that he has been very busy recently, because I have been knocking on his door and he has not answered. One of the reasons that I was doing so was that he promised several Members at a meeting before the summer recess that he would give us notice before the recess of the decision on the regionalisation of control centres. Sadly, that did not happen before the recess. I was desperately worried, because the Minister had made a commitment to us—I am sure that he did so in good faith—to let us know about this matter in good time, so that we could debate it before the recess. However, I am pleased that we are here today debating it.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Let me apologise to the hon. Gentleman. If I have not apologised before, I certainly do so now. We had hoped to be able to deliver that information before the summer recess, but it was not possible. We put the locations out as soon as we could, which was during the recess. It would have been equally inappropriate to wait until we came back in October to do so.

Michael Penning: I fully accept the Minister's comments. I understand that it can take time to get things to happen when he is dealing with lots of bureaucrats, and it is the bureaucratic mess that I am particularly worried about. The Minister knows a lot about the fire service from his history of working in it, but I am not sure how many of the people who surround him in the civil service in London understand what is happening on the ground.
	The Minister joined the fire service a little before I did. At that time, control people in the whole-time stations knew the topography of the local area; they knew what was going on. If someone called the fire brigade, the call went directly to their local whole-time fire station. That service was moved, however, from fire stations to divisional control centres. Why? It was to save money. The service stayed there for a while, where it worked pretty well, although not as well as it had in the stations. Guess what? To save money, we then moved it from the divisional control centres to the brigade control centres, which is where it operates from today. That has worked, because a lot of the local knowledge went to the control centres. It was possible for people who lived in the county and worked in those control centres to move up in that way. Most of the people who work in the control centres in Hertfordshire and in Essex—where I was a full-time firemen—moved in that way, and some of them had put in 20 or 30 years' service.
	We are now talking about moving to nine regional control centres. If this is all about saving money—and it is; the Minister has already said that he wants to invest it elsewhere—perhaps we could just have one control centre. Or perhaps we could do as the banks have done and have a call centre in Delhi or Bombay. If it is not about knowledge and only about technology, the proposal for nine centres does not make sense. It must therefore be about what is safe for the public and what works.
	Like many other Members, I have grave concerns about IT projects. A Labour Member commented earlier from a sedentary position that IT projects went wrong under Conservative Governments, too, which is perfectly correct—they have been going wrong since time immemorial. In relation to this IT project, the key is lives being saved. That is why I fundamentally oppose the project, and why the FBU opposes it, as it understands the situation on the ground much better than any bureaucrat in Westminster.
	I want briefly to consider some of the modernisations that have—or, rather, have not—been introduced. The former Minister for Local and Regional Government, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich commented from a sedentary position that this is not about cuts. If you come to Hertfordshire, however, you will see that Bovingdon and Radlett fire stations are being closed. At least one pump is being removed from Watford, and four full-time firemen from Hemel Hempstead. When we asked the chief fire officer why that had happened, his reply was that he must save £500,000 so that he can finance the fire prevention measures—of which I am wholeheartedly in favour—that are not being funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We are therefore having cuts—the provision is not being relocated, as some Labour Members were saying, but is vanishing.
	The largest town in Hertfordshire is Hemel Hempstead—I am pleased that the Ministers of State from the Department of Health are in the Chamber, as the hospital is also subject to massive cuts, which perhaps I will delve into in a moment—and it has two pumps. The most accident-prone part of the M1 in southern England, junction 8—it is fantastic that it is going to be widened, and I hope that we will not have as many accidents in future—is covered by the pump at Bovingdon, and Bovingdon station is being closed. I take to heart the comments made about retained fire stations, and in a perfect world we would not have any retained or part-time stations. In this imperfect world, however, we have community-based fire stations that serve and are manned by their local community, and we should praise people who are willing to risk their lives for not a lot of money to be retained firemen.
	The other week, I attended Dacorum borough council's scrutiny committee and listened to the commander of Bovingdon fire station, who has served as a community fireman for 30 years and who was almost in tears because he knows that the closure of that station will cost lives. One of the reasons that that is possible is that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has changed the rules and allowed a longer time of up to 10 minutes for the appliances to arrive at residences after a call is initiated. It was suggested earlier that most people are dead before the call is made, but many are not. The quicker that we can get the appliances to them, the quicker we can get them out, and those of us who have served know how important that is. If it is the case that most people are dead before the fire engine is called, we might as well turn the blue lights off and just drive. As a former driver of a fire engine, however, I could never do that. I would like to try to drive a fire engine in your constituency and get the distance without the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He must use the correct parliamentary language: "you" and "your" are not permissible in that direct way.

Michael Penning: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the second time that I have had to be called to order today, and I apologise to you and the Minister involved earlier. It is a learning process—

Tim Boswell: Like the call centres.

Michael Penning: Yes, it is like the learning process for people in call centres.
	If we take away local knowledge and work only on the basis of costs, and say that we need much better fire prevention and smoke alarms fitted but do not fund it, we must close fire stations. Closing Bovingdon station will save £90,000. When I asked the assistant chief constable who did the presentation what the reasons were behind it, he said, "Sir, you have to ask the local politicians about that." I did, and the answer was that Hertfordshire must save £500,000 from the fire budget; otherwise it will not meet the criteria set by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Recently, I, like colleagues on both sides of the House, met representatives of my ambulance trust. I asked them whether they were looking forward to the mooted amalgamation. There was silence. Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire have a fantastic ambulance service. I told them that there will be massive changes to the health service in Hertfordshire. I am not ashamed to mention that I and my constituents are very worried about closures of acute services at Hemel Hempstead hospital, which means that we will need more ambulances to move more people, on a blue light, from my constituency to Watford, the only available accident and emergency department, which happens to be full at the moment and on red alert, so it has not been able to take anyone at all recently. The ambulance trust said, "We have asked for more money, Mr. Penning, but none is forthcoming." I ask the Minister responding to the debate to say where the extra money will come from. Will we get money not only for the reorganisation, but for more ambulances, so that we can move people around this "big is beautiful" health service that seems to be developing?
	I turn finally to the police. I in no way take a draconian view on this issue, and I am not completely opposed to any amalgamation of constabularies. As I said this week in my local paper, if such amalgamation puts more bobbies on the beat and leads to a better police force and fewer bureaucrats and administrators, we will consider it. But we can do so only if the relevant evidence is put before us. All too often, we are getting "bounced", be it on fire services, fire control centres, hospitals, ambulances or the police. The lack of information—

Philip Dunne: I want to make a very brief intervention. There is already evidence of the consequences of the regionalisation of police forces. A former divisional commander of the Met, which is effectively a regional force, told me that its priorities do not match those of the local divisional forces surrounding the centre. Resource drift into the centre is an inevitable consequence of the regionalisation of police forces.

Michael Penning: Let us hope that that evidence is put before us, so that we can have a proper debate. That is what I am looking for: a proper debate, rather than being "bounced".

Andrew Lansley: This has been an excellent debate and I share in the gratitude expressed by others to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for introducing it. It is both timely and necessary, given that, in the past three months, we have been unable to engage with the changes to our emergency services affecting our constituents. The debate has shown that Members in all parts of the House are concerned about these changes and it is right that we use our first week back at Westminster to bring our concerns to the Government's attention. I hope that Ministers have listened to those concerns, which are reflected in the motion.
	My hon. Friend explained excellently and effectively the essence of the case: there is no basis in evidence for such regionalisation; in many cases, it will run risks; there is good evidence from within the service that it might hinder effectiveness; and there will be an essential loss of accountability or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) put it, certainly a loss of access to those responsible for these vital services.
	The Minister, whom I like—he often speaks a great deal of sense—appears to have lost his grip. Perhaps he has been a Minister for too long and read too many briefs, instead of getting out there and seeing what is going on. He failed to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. She asked him to show us the evidential basis for having fire control centres and asked whether a cost-benefit analysis had been undertaken. He said, "Oh yes, there is a cost-benefit analysis", but he has not published it and he did not show it to us. We had to wait for the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to tell us about the plain speaking of the regional management boards concerning the outline business case. They did not accept the case made to them: they did not believe that the claimed benefits would be delivered.
	Nor did the Minister answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who said that it is a question of the fire service's resilience not just after 2009, but during the intervening period. Indeed, that is true of many emergency services. We must remember the human dimension. It is all very well writing these ideas down in Whitehall, creating organograms and dealing with the maps and geography; it is when we try to put the ideas into practice and understand how the system is to be managed effectively in the intervening period by organisations—organisations consisting of people—that serious problems emerge.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) introduced us to the concept of "quangocratisation"—whatever that is. She argued on the one hand that voters had rejected elected regional assemblies, and on the other that the Liberal Democrats therefore think that we should move to elected regional government. That is a bizarre approach from the Liberal Democrats, as usual. I am afraid that, once the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) stopped digging himself into a hole, he rather confused me. He appeared to argue that big is better, and that the London fire control system is the biggest and therefore the best. He left to one side the relative resources deployed in London in comparison with the rest of the country, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) rightly referred. When choosing examples of where the best technology was located, the right hon. Gentleman did not mention London, but Norfolk and Merseyside. If those two areas can lead the way in the application of new technologies, why cannot a smaller service be relied on to deliver the appropriate technology?
	The fact is that the Government do not want to support more accessible and accountable services that mesh attention to local need and local partnerships with the application of best technology. Rather, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) said, they want to make substantial savings, which they probably erroneously believe can be realised from economies of scale in the regionalisation of control centres.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, in delivering public services, his party believes that it is right to look for the most cost-effective means while at the same time maintaining the highest standards of service to the public? If he does not accept that, will he explain why not?

Andrew Lansley: Of course we believe in cost-effectiveness and value for money, but two points need to be made. First, the Minister has not presented any evidence to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. Secondly, as I was arguing, the Government are prepared to cut costs in order to redirect money elsewhere. That is not wrong in itself. Spending money on fire prevention will indeed save lives. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead rightly pointed out, those who work in the fire service today want to be able to respond to 999 calls effectively and they want to develop and structure their service in a way that is responsive to local needs. If regionalisation cuts costs but reduces effectiveness, it does not provide value for money. That is the key point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry provided an almost impossibly large amount of information about the geography of his constituency and where he lives, but we entirely understood his point that it is all very well being at the centre of England, but it does not necessarily prevent one from being at everyone's boundary. The idea that by having fewer bodies we have fewer boundaries has been mentioned several times. Let us go to the absurd length of considering a service that is fully national in all respects. That might be said to mean that there were no boundaries, that everything was seamless and that all services would run at maximum effectiveness—but we know that that is nonsense. The real issue is determining the proper degree of rationalisation necessary to deliver effectiveness.

Tim Boswell: rose—

Andrew Lansley: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, many important issues were raised and I want to say a few words about the ambulance service.
	Only a few hon. Members referred to the ambulance service, but it is a key issue. The Minister who is to reply to the debate knows that the Peter Bradley review was published earlier this year. She also knows that it suggested that some rationalisation was necessary to deliver a degree of strategic capacity for some ambulance services.
	Let us consider the Avon, Gloucester and Wiltshire ambulance services, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) mentioned that the Wiltshire ambulance service was felt to be too small to be able to deliver the necessary strategic capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) made a similar point about the Royal Berkshire ambulance service. Notwithstanding its three-star status, it was felt that it needed to be run on a Thames valley basis to deliver the requisite strategic capacity. In neither of those instances and not at all in the Bradley review, was there any argument that the rationalisation of ambulance services needed to reduce them to as few as 11 trusts. On the basis of the Bradley review, we would be looking at about 25 trusts. Many of the relevant trusts are at the top of the star ratings, to which the Government attach so much importance: they are three-star trusts serving relatively small populations of about 1 million to 2 million.
	A good argument can be made in some cases, but the problem arises if we move away from ambulance service trusts of about that size. What do we move to? The hon. Member for Brent, East mentioned the key point about ambulance services: they will be much less capable of integrating with emergency care networks. There is a whole agenda within the NHS of turning ambulance services into emergency care trusts that are capable—if the local emergency care networks or the primary care trusts wish to commission them—of delivering out-of-hours services. They are certainly capable of being first-response organisations. Ambulance services may even take over provider functions if PCTs are required to give them up. Any regional ambulance service would resemble the London service, which is not moving towards such innovations. It would be much less able to create the local partnerships that are so necessary and could not be managed in a way that would ensure integrated emergency care, because its standards would be set centrally.
	If big were beautiful, the London ambulance service would be the best in the country. I have the greatest respect for its personnel, who responded magnificently on 7 July. However, they know, as do we, that the London service does not attain the same high standards achieved by other services. The question of how a service responds to calls was at the centre of the Bradley review, which showed that the London service was substantially less rigorous than many others. Moreover, its control centre does not have the computer-aided despatch process that other services enjoy. There is therefore no basis for the Government's proposals for the ambulance services.
	In addition, the Minister failed to recognise an especially glaring anomaly. He said that the police service proposals were not set in stone and that any change would be service-led and based on open consultation. In contrast, with the ambulance service, we have not even got as far as public consultation on regional control centres, yet the Government have already decided that there will be 11 ambulance trusts. No evidence has been offered to show why that would be desirable and I know of no public support for the proposals. The people in the service to whom I have spoken believe that the proposals are driven entirely by the Government's cost-saving agenda. They do not believe that that is justified, nor expect the savings to be achieved.
	I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, but he was able to answer a question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden that the Minister avoided. He said that the outline business case in respect of fire control centres was not supported by the available evidence and that documentation in his possession showed that the proposal was not supported by the regional management boards of the fire service.
	It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he will write to the hon. Gentleman and place his letter in the Library of the House. He should have published months ago the cost-benefit analysis and outline business case that underlie the Government's proposals so that they could be subject to public scrutiny.
	This has been a vital debate and I am glad that we have had it. It equips all of us with the ability to tell our constituents that we have challenged the Government but, more importantly, it has exposed the Government's failure to explain why they want to go down the path of regionalisation. The Government have been frustrated by the result of the assembly elections in the north-east, but nevertheless wish to proceed with the regionalisation of government. However, that regional government will remain under the control of the ODPM and central Government.
	This Government have been in office too long and have forgotten that they are responsible to the people of this country. Instead, and one way or another, they want to run all the services in this country from Whitehall.

Rosie Winterton: Naturally, I do not agree with the motion, but I am pleased that the debate has given us the opportunity to pay tribute once again to the work of our emergency services, whose dedication and commitment are second to none. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said—his words were echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and by several Opposition Members—the events of 7 July gave us a tragic reminder of the invaluable work performed by the people who staff our emergency services. I am sure that the whole House wants to pay tribute to them.
	This debate has also allowed us to discuss how to shape our emergency services for the 21st century, and for all the new demands and challenges that we face. It is true that our police, fire and ambulance services are all undergoing change. That is not only because we want high-quality local services, but because we need to have emergency services that can deal with major incidents, whether terrorist attacks, chemical incidents, major transport accidents or natural disasters such as the floods that we have seen all too often in recent years. All the evidence and lessons learned over the past few years point to the fact that major incidents require a co-ordinated response across local boundaries. Specialist equipment is often required and personnel from a wider geographical area may need to be called upon. It has to be possible to mobilise at short notice resources from outside the immediate area. Disasters do not respect local authority boundaries and we have to have emergency services that respond to that fact.
	As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said about the fire service, we need to upgrade our communication and control centres so that they can deal as effectively as possible with major incidents. He also said that, in July, the London fire brigade showed the importance of being able to respond at a regional level. It is generally accepted that a similar strategic approach is necessary throughout the country.

Richard Younger-Ross: The new control centres rely on phone location identification for landlines and mobile lines. I understand that the software for landlines is not yet in place and that it is certainly not in place for mobile telephones. Will the Minister give an assurance that no regional control room will open until that software is in place and that all phones can be identified on the computer?

Rosie Winterton: I understand that, in a number of areas, the software is already in place and it goes without saying that that will all be taken into account in opening regional centres.
	I felt that the debate was slightly like a branch meeting of the Fire Brigades Union, not only because of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's background but because of the contribution of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who started well but deteriorated when he criticised some of those working in the service. In terms of the local changes to the fire service, my hon. Friend has heard the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). I understand that the Under-Secretary wrote back to my hon. Friend two days ago and he will respond, as he said he would, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to his points about finance. We will look into the points about the contract made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I hope that my hon. Friend also reassured the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) on the new technology.
	With regard to the police, my hon. Friend said that the independent inspectorate was clear that a move to larger strategic forces across England and Wales would provide the best business solution to ensure that every force had sufficient capability and capacity to provide the full range of protective services, including preparedness for response to large-scale incidents, alongside effective neighbourhood policing.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) spoke about further consultation and the police themselves have made proposals, but we will pass on her point and that of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about future consultation to follow on from the proposals, which are to received at the end of December. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) pointed out, the ambulance services review was carried out by the chief executive of the London ambulance service. The review concluded that we need fewer and bigger ambulance trusts if they are to be able to respond to major incidents, as well as to invest in the people and resources needed to increase the range of services that they provide for patients and the public. Our proposals will ensure that resources are targeted at where they are needed most and that they improve patient care and support front-line services.
	We propose that there should be 11 trusts that will align with the Government Offices for the Regions, the fire service control rooms and the proposed strategic health authorities and be set up within boundaries that enable closer co-operation with police forces. For the first time, ambulance trusts will be aligned both with services that respond to major emergencies and services that provide day-to-day health care.

Andrew Lansley: rose—

Rosie Winterton: If I may anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point, a particular example of a gain from our proposals is the training of emergency care practitioners. If that is done on a more strategic level, the training will be improved and skills and potential enhanced.

Andrew Lansley: One of the best ambulance trusts in the country—its standards are reflected in its star ratings—is the Staffordshire ambulance trust. We have heard from hon. Members across Staffordshire that the trust delivers an effective service and that it is innovative and at the leading edge of ambulance trust delivery. Why does the Minister think that regionalisation would improve that trust? The implication of what she has just said is regional control centres for ambulance services, but the Government have not said that they propose such centres.

Rosie Winterton: No, that is not the case. We will consult on the proposals for 11 trusts, but we have also made it clear that decisions about control rooms will be taken at local level. There are some very good ambulance trusts and the idea is not that their standards should be brought down by merging. The idea is that they will help to improve other ambulance trusts—an idea that has worked time and again in the NHS. We will have services that can respond properly and strategically at regional level and also reflect needs at local level.

Paul Farrelly: The effectiveness of the Staffordshire ambulance trust has already been pointed out and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) raised it with the Prime Minister. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an assurance that, after the consultation, we will not have a one-size-fits-all solution imposed and that, if local arrangements are shown to work, the Government will not try to fix them?

Rosie Winterton: If my hon. Friend had been in his place earlier, he would know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made it clear that the proposals were all about being responsive at local level, as well as good strategic co-ordination. They are not about changes to front-line ambulance service provision. Local innovations and successes would be not only preserved, but shared to benefit all. This is an opportunity to lift the quality of the lowest and set a high benchmark.
	The hon. Member for Meriden asked why we have proposed the changes. The answer is simple: we want better, faster services that are more responsive to major incidents. It is extraordinary that the Opposition choose to denigrate the fact that we are ensuring that our emergency services can respond as effectively as possible at regional and neighbourhood level.
	What did the Conservative party offer the emergency services and the public when it was in power? Crime doubled, the NHS was run into the ground and the fire services, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich so eloquently put it, were left to stagnate with no attempt to modernise or invest in them to make them fit for the 21st century. The Conservatives learned no lessons at the last general election, because the patient's passport would have taken £1.2 billion out of the NHS—almost exactly the cost of the ambulance service in England.
	The debate has once again underlined the fact that it is the Government who are in tune with what the public want—policies that the public endorsed at the general election—which is modern, up-to-date emergency services that are properly equipped, with proper training, and properly co-ordinated to save lives and protect the public.
	Once again the Opposition are swimming against the tide of public opinion and fighting the battles of the past. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the motion and for the Government.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House supports local, regional and national collaboration to improve public safety and health; welcomes the continuing reduction in fire deaths which Fire and Rescue Authorities have achieved in partnership with the Government and other stakeholders; welcomes the positive role played by local authorities in Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and the fall in crime as a result; welcomes the public consultation underway to ensure police force structures protect the public from terrorism and organised crime, while continuing to provide responsive neighbourhood policing that meets the needs of local communities; welcomes the proposed managerial changes in ambulance trusts which will cut overheads and bureaucracy, while boosting investment in front-line staff and services for patients; and congratulates the Government on increasing expenditure on all the emergency services since its election in 1997.

Tackling Climate Change

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I also tell the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in the debate.

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
	That this House regrets the Prime Minister's apparent willingness to abandon the effort to achieve a second Kyoto agreement; and calls upon the Government to implement a system of independent monitoring which will assist governments in achieving the Royal Commission's target reduction in emissions by 2050.
	I also make a declaration of my interests in the register.

Margaret Beckett: What interests?

Oliver Letwin: The right hon. Lady asks how I can possibly have any interests. I am not sure that I do have any interests, as a matter of fact, but I always try to follow the path of greatest assurance.
	The problem of climate change is manifestly global. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House is in any doubt that the problem requires global solutions. It is also clear that the Prime Minister has grasped the global nature of the problem. It would be fair to pay him the tribute of saying that since Lady Thatcher's speech many years ago, he is probably the person in British politics who has most signally grasped that fact. What is more—this might not necessarily give some of my colleagues great satisfaction—I must say that I think that the Prime Minister is right that we will not make significant global progress until and unless we realise what the Americans, Chinese, Indians and Russians are clearly now recognising: the solution to the problem of increasing carbon emissions does not lie in trying to persuade the entirety of the inhabitants of the globe to live like monks in the middle ages, or in trying to pretend away the serious problems of competitive advantage if some economies engage in certain activities, while others engage in others. In short, there is no doubt at all that the United States will not participate unless and until China, India, Russia, Brazil—probably—and possibly Japan are fully locked into a process. So far, I agree with the Prime Minister.
	I must say, however, that I read with some dismay the Prime Minister's remarks—made not here in the UK, of course, but in the States—suggesting that he had abandoned the hope of some years hence moving from a stage at which there was a joint and laudable effort to introduce new technologies to one at which there could be a wider second Kyoto—although I care not whether it would be called that—that would represent a much wider binding agreement across the great majority of the economies of the world that targets would be achieved for carbon reduction. We still need to strive towards that goal, so I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to relieve my anxiety and let us know that the Prime Minister's remarks have been misinterpreted and that although he does not believe—as I do not—that there will be a second Kyoto agreement in short order, he nevertheless hopes to negotiate such a universal binding agreement in due course. If that is the Prime Minister's view, we share it.

David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman makes typically delphic opening remarks, but says that he agrees with the Government and the Prime Minister about the importance placed on global warming. He also makes positive remarks about Lady Thatcher and others. Bearing in mind that the Conservative party has decided to take the time to debate climate change and global warming, is it not odd that it barely mentioned it in the general election? To what extent was it referred to in the manifesto?

Oliver Letwin: As a matter of fact, I think it was odd that both the hon. Gentleman's party and mine—I exempt the Liberal Democrats from this—did not spend nearly as much of the general election campaign discussing the issues as we collectively should have done. It is a just accusation that the manifesto should have included some things more than it did. I am not going to pretend otherwise. I do not specialise in delphic utterances. That is about as clear as one can get. It is time for our parties to put the subject higher up the political agenda. When he has heard the rest of my remarks, he will see how I intend, and hope, to persuade British politics as a whole to move in that direction.

Edward Balls: I take the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to tackling climate change at face value. Does he regret that his party opposed the climate change levy, which was introduced to pursue climate change? Will he unequivocally tell the House that he has changed his party's mind and that it now supports the levy?

Oliver Letwin: No, and I shall explain why. The climate change levy is an extraordinarily inept tool. It has one very good aspect—the climate change agreements that have been reached with big industry—but it has one very bad effect, which the hon. Gentleman and his erstwhile, and perhaps future, master in the Treasury intended it to have. It raises a large amount of money for the Treasury from a large number of small firms, but the effect on their performance in relation to climate change is precisely nil. That is not a well targeted or well designed environmental levy. Our solutions are superior. I hope that, in due course, the Labour party will come round to them.

Paddy Tipping: rose—

Oliver Letwin: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, not least because of his distinguished role in yesterday's proceedings on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill. I then intend to make progress.

Paddy Tipping: I shall try to be helpful again. The right hon. Gentleman referred to pushing climate change up the political agenda and in particular to the role of the Prime Minister. Let us be clear on this. Does he accept that the Prime Minister got it on the G8 agenda, that it will be discussed at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg next year, and that he has met China, India and Russia? How much more should we do in an international setting? Is not that a good record?

Oliver Letwin: I am coming on to what more should be done, but I accept that the Prime Minister has done noble work in putting the subject higher up the international agenda. However, discussions between China, India and the United States went on largely without his involvement. That is no discredit to him. He has since taken a leading role in furthering those discussions. That is to his credit. We are not in disagreement about that. My problems relate to the fact that apart from having apparently given up the idea of a second Kyoto—I hope that the Secretary of State tells us that that is not the case—the rhetoric domestically has not been matched by delivery domestically.

Richard Ottaway: My right hon. Friend started in a consensual manner, but a slightly partisan note has crept in from Labour Members. In that case, is it not worth pointing out that the record of the previous Conservative Government, who dramatically reduced CO 2 emissions, looks far more impressive than anything that this Government have done since coming into office?

Oliver Letwin: I shall perhaps make a political mistake by making an admission to my hon. Friend. Factually he is right that under the Conservative Administrations in the 1990s there was a substantial reduction in carbon dioxide. However, having been personally involved in the restructuring of the electricity supply industry, that was a serendipitous effect of the dash for gas. We cannot claim that it was part of a well co-ordinated plan to reduce carbon emissions. [Interruption.] Before Government Members giggle too much, they should recognise that that is symptomatic of the position of this Government. I fear that there is no sign of a well co-ordinated plan to reduce carbon emissions, and that is the germ of my argument. Governments of both political persuasions have failed to develop a well co-ordinated plan. In one case, the dash for gas led to carbon reductions but in the other, apart from a change in the production of adipic acid, there has been hardly any movement at all except for recent adverse results. That is the main thrust of the arguments that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and I shall make today.
	It is hardly worth looking at the year-by-year carbon emission figures because they dart around. The most honest and compelling way to look at the figures is to consider three-year rolling averages. I cannot recall such a clear pattern. In 1992, the three-year rolling average for CO 2 emissions in terms of millions of tonnes of carbon equivalent was 165. It dropped in 1993 to 163; in 1994, to 159; and in 1995, to 157. It remained at 157 in 1996, and dropped in 1997 to 156—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway). Since 1997, the three-year rolling average has been 156, 153—it dropped a little—153, 154, 154, 155 and 156. In short, it has gone back up to 1997 levels.

David Taylor: That is the result of economic growth.

Oliver Letwin: Economic growth may well have contributed to the carbon increase, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to advance the proposition that we should avoid economic growth. If we are to have sustained economic growth, as we both want, and if we are serious, which I am and which I suppose he is—certainly the Secretary of State is—about trying to achieve carbon reduction we must find a means of allying it to economic growth, not explaining away carbon increases in terms of economic growth.
	There is an empirical fact of the matter. I do not wish to attribute blame to anyone, and am merely stating the facts. We are moving remorselessly in the wrong direction domestically. It is true that that has been masked by a particular change in 1999, when the production method of adipic acid altered and nitrous oxide was reduced serendipitously. That will not happen again, and I know of no other industrial process that will make a similar contribution. We are now on a track which, without a significant change of course, will lead to an increase not a reduction in carbon emissions in this country.

Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman is spot-on, but does he agree that we are where we are because of a regulatory framework that has produced unintended consequences, including the destruction of investment in combined heat and power? Does he not acknowledge that unlocking that investment would reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially and enable us to meet the Kyoto target? Does he agree that the Government ought to find a mechanism that does so?

Oliver Letwin: The sad demise of combined heat is only one element of many contributing to this sorry tale. Others include the lack of micro-generation and the fact that boilers are not being replaced with micro-generators; the difficulty of installing small domestic windmills on people's houses; the relationship to the electricity supply industry; the lack of enforcement of building regulations; the fact that we are building large numbers of environmentally unfriendly houses; and the fact that our transport system does not yet have a renewable transport fuel obligation despite years of inquiry. Those factors, and many other things besides, have contributed to the problem, and each of them is important.
	I want to discuss an overarching question: how can we—as a country, as three political parties and as the Government or a potential alternative Government—ensure that we do not have debates in the House of Commons for the next 50 years in which anybody who is honest must stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "The situation is getting worse rather than better"? That is not a partisan point, because many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with it.
	I could suggest to my party that at the next election we should address the problem, to which the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) rightly alluded, of our not being seen to be involved in environmental affairs, by adopting a partisan position. The way things are going, nothing would be easier than adopting that approach. We could spend a lot of time picking holes in the Government's record, but it would not be productive.
	Today, the hon. Member for Lewes and I are proposing a productive agreement involving the Secretary of State and the Government, because we have an opportunity to agree on some things. The opportunity exists, because we already agree on a subset of those issues—for some time, all three political parties have been signed up to the idea of reducing emissions in this country by 60 per cent. between now and 2050, which is a considerable rock on which to found much else.
	It cannot be rationally asserted that three political parties in a mature democracy have signed up to a target for 2050 without it following that those three parties can agree year-by-year targets between now and 2050. We cannot get to a 2050 target by waiting until 2049, and we all know that there must be a path between here and there. The nature of the path, which will involve energy security, economic progress and available technologies, is immensely complex, and much room is available for discussion, which should commence now.
	There are good grounds for supposing that we can go further, because we can all agree to the blindingly obvious. Just as the hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls), who intervened earlier, was right to establish the Monetary Policy Committee as an independent body to help to countervail against the natural tendency in a democracy for Governments to take short-term decisions, which may have bad long-term consequences, on interest rates for electoral reasons, so it is clear that in the domain of climate change and environmental policy, a distinct tendency exists in our or any other democracy for Governments to take a short-term position that leads to long-term deficiencies.
	Just as the MPC corrected that effect, we need an independent monitoring body to engage in a probabilistic analysis along the lines of the MPC's trumpet-shaped curves. Such a body would come to Parliament every year, when it would state whether on present policy the Government of the day have a 50 per cent. chance, a 90 per cent. chance or a 2 per cent. chance of meeting the year-by-year targets to which all three parties would have signed up in the world that I am gesturing towards. That does not mean that the Government would immediately have to take specific action—nobody can remove the democratic power that lies with a Government—but they would be sorely embarrassed if they did not take actions that led to such a body predicting a high likelihood of meeting the year-by-year targets.
	In the course of our joint endeavours during the past 24 hours, the hon. Member for Lewes has made the good point that a Government who increased the probability of meeting those targets, as assessed by the independent monitor, and who knew that both of the other major political parties were also signed up to the process, would be immune from petty politicking, which would otherwise go on all too easily, along the lines of "You are causing a cost for my constituents. I can make some political capital out of this, notwithstanding the fact that I know that the policy is right, if we are to meet the targets in the long run." That would be prohibited, so to speak, because all three parties would be conjoined in a consensual approach to these matters. That is a very desirable result.

Edward Balls: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's analogy about independent advice. Back in 1998, the Government went to the president of the CBI—who, I am sure you would agree, is not at all a partisan political figure—and asked him to look at the issue of climate change. He recommended, independently of Government, that we move towards emissions trading in the long term, but in the short to medium term we should have the climate change levy, with negotiated agreements, and supported by the CBI. For partisan political reasons, the right hon. Gentleman and his party opposed it. How can he now, with any credibility, lecture us about not being partisan?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that he must use the correct parliamentary language when addressing the House.

Oliver Letwin: The tone of voice that I was attempting to adopt was one not of lecturing the hon. Gentleman but of making a positive proposal about a way in which the three parties might go forward. If he wants to persist in the rather paltry business of continually defending a partly defensible and partly indefensible position in relation to a tax that has had some desirable effects but others that are unfortunately not so desirable, that is a pity. Rather than worrying about all that, we have an opportunity to do something that is of extraordinary significance not only for the way in which this country behaves but in giving us the ability to engage in moral leadership globally. Unless we make serious strides, not backwards but forwards, in reducing carbon, we cannot lead globally to anything like the extent that the Prime Minister rightly wants.

Andrew Selous: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are unlikely to make progress on climate change until the public take it more seriously, and that we have all failed in doing that job? By way of a small example, I made climate change one of the lead items on my election literature, but not one person in my constituency commented on it during my campaign, either positively or negatively.

Oliver Letwin: This debate is in danger of turning into something that is positively interesting. My hon. Friend is right to say that most people in this country are not particularly interested in what we are debating. I very much doubt that it will feature as the main item on the 6 o'clock news. However, I do not agree with him that we should therefore wait until people are interested. In fact, we have the opportunity to engage in leadership of the sort that he demonstrated in his leaflet; and we can go further. The very fact that most people do not put this high on their agenda is the reason why we and the Liberal Democrats have come to the conclusion that we need a cross-party consensus so that we can do the right things, notwithstanding the fact that they will often not gain immediate electoral appeal.

Robert Key: In pursuing this excellent new initiative, will my right hon. Friend not forget to bring on board local government? He said that housing has not been a tremendously good example of how we can save energy and contribute to climate change. I asked a major developer who was constructing part of the largest industrial development in my constituency, Solstice park, near Amesbury, "Why haven't you got greener buildings?" They said, "The building regulations don't require it and the local authority doesn't encourage us to do it, so we don't."

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend, who has a long and distinguished record of interest in those matters, is right that local government has a major part to play. So does national housing policy, which brings me to my penultimate point.
	I do not know whether the Secretary of State will admit it, but I suspect that she does not greatly disagree with most of my comments. I also suspect that she, through no fault of her own, is in a position in Whitehall that often makes it difficult to pull levers and find something at the other end. I suspect that she often pulls levers only to find that there is not much at the other end. The reason for that is the way in which the power structures of Whitehall operate. Many powerful forces are at work in Whitehall—the Treasury, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Transport, energy and the Department for Trade and Industry, which sponsors it. Each is a power base. It is difficult to corral a whole Government into a joined-up policy—to adopt one of the Government's favourite phrases —that delivers a serious reduction in carbon while keeping the lights on and the economy growing.
	The sort of cross-party agreement and framework that we and the Liberal Democrats propose would have the added effect of immeasurably strengthening the Secretary of State's hand—and, bizarrely, that of the Prime Minister—against other Departments because it would suddenly become almost imperative for them to play along with the effort to do something serious about carbon. That would be true of not only the current regime but subsequent Governments of different hues. The Secretary of State has a personal interest in playing an active role in moving in the direction that we and the Liberal Democrats suggest.

David Chaytor: The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 25 minutes and has told us what we read in The Independent this morning. Does he accept that it is easy to talk about a new Lib-Con coalition, which I welcome—I hope that the Secretary of State responds positively to it—but that hon. Members want to hear his specific proposals for backing up the coalition? Does he acknowledge that he opposed interim targets in his election manifesto?

Oliver Letwin: No. We have not opposed interim targets; indeed, I am proposing them. Although I have been speaking for 25 minutes, I have spent much time answering interventions. I do not have concrete proposals and there are two reasons for that.
	First, I came to the post three or four months ago and I have been working helter skelter to get my party into a position whereby we can make concrete proposals. We have been developing the computer programmes and in-house expertise that is required to enable us to participate constructively. By the time the climate change programme review is announced, we will have had many of the discussions and be able to enter into it.
	Secondly, even when we are in a position to make concrete proposals, rather than the hon. Member for Lewes or us saying, "Here are our proposals; take them or leave them", we would like to have a three-party discussion and try to devise proposals with which we can all live and that will not be "the Government's proposals", "Conservative proposals" or "Liberal Democrat proposals" but joint proposals. I understand that that will be a culture shock in British politics but if we do not do that we will not have something that stands the test of different regimes.

Pete Wishart: If the right hon. Gentleman asks nicely, he might even have four-party support for his proposals. Before we invest in such a grand coalition, he would have to convince us that the Conservatives are genuinely committed to tackling climate change. In Scotland, we observe Conservatives running around opposing almost every renewable scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Oliver Letwin: I cannot invite the hon. Gentleman and his party into a multi-party coalition about devolved matters. I hope that we can co-operate with other parties in other parts of the United Kingdom about matters that are not devolved. We need to take a proactively favourable attitude to renewable power.
	We also have to recognise that there are limits on each of the solutions to the problems of carbon emissions. That is why no one solution is the answer. In the few months that I have been doing this job, I have been extraordinarily impressed by the number of people who have said to me, "My solution is the solution." Each one is wrong, not in the sense that their solution does not have a part to play, but in the sense that we need all of them to a moderate and limited degree that recognises the constraints involved. Those involve other environmental constraints, including non-carbon environmental constraints, economic constraints, and constraints relating to the supply and timing of the technologies.

Alan Simpson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, even if he is not in a position to come forward with concrete proposals at this stage, the House as a whole has a responsibility to address some of the ambiguities about climate change that his colleagues have raised? It is not that the public are uninterested in the issue. If we ask them whether they are bothered about flash flooding that sends sewage into their streets and living rooms, they are as sure as hell interested. If they are asked whether they are worried about their cars being swept down the streets of Boscastle, they are interested. They would also have been interested if they had been asked, during the summer of 2002, whether they wanted to die of heatstroke. As politicians, we must at least begin to consider the practical realities of the climate change challenges that threaten the very lives and livelihoods of the citizens we represent.

Oliver Letwin: I agree that we have to bring home to people the relationship between these apparently abstract matters and the very concrete results, which are of huge importance. In doing so, however, we must not make the mistake of asserting causal connections that are either tenuous or non-existent. We must not suggest that every appalling event that occurs is the direct consequence of climate change, when many of them are not. That is a difficult balance to strike. We must bring it home to people that we are talking about the distinct possibility—indeed, the likelihood—of significantly increased numbers of catastrophic events taking place some years hence if we do not take action now. That is a difficult proposition to get across in a democracy, but I believe it to be possible, and because we are talking about taking action now to affect a time far in the future, doing it together is the only option.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Oliver Letwin: I believe that I have tired the House long enough. If I answer any more points now, I shall be accused of going on too long.

Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"congratulates the UK Government on the unparalleled leadership it has shown in raising the issue of climate change up the international agenda; welcomes the outcomes of the G8 Summit in July in Gleneagles and the UK's achievements in establishing a new momentum in international discussion on climate change; further welcomes the Government's commitment to work towards agreement on the long-term goals and action needed to stabilise the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the UK's commitment to seek further international action through the EU Presidency, the first meeting of the G8 dialogue on 1st November and the Montreal meeting in December; commends the Labour Party for its continuing objective to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010; and welcomes any support for measures that will actually reduce UK emissions.".
	I must begin by saying that, with great respect to the measured tone adopted by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), both the timing and the wording of the motion strike me as faintly odd. The motion
	"regrets the Prime Minister's apparent willingness to abandon the effort to achieve a second Kyoto agreement".
	I say that the timing is somewhat odd because this debate occurs between two relevant events. Last week, I co-chaired a two-day business conference sponsored jointly by my Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Climate Group. That conference was clearly germane to these issues. And in only a couple of weeks' time, we shall see the first meeting involving an unprecedented dialogue: the Gleneagles dialogue.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his activities in this regard, but we should place it clearly on record that no Government and no leader anywhere in the world have done more than our Prime Minister to create the circumstances in which the world community—and I mean all the world community—can begin to explore the possibility and scope of international negotiation beyond the first Kyoto commitment period. This country ought to take pride in that.
	I suspect that most world leaders would have thought that fighting and winning a general election campaign provided enough pressure for one year, and, if forced by chronology to combine that with the presidency of the G8 alone, never mind that of the European Union, would perhaps merely have used the opportunity to be seen on the world stage. However, it has been widely observed that our Prime Minister has made more forceful and more constructive use of the G8 mechanism than anyone can remember. It was as a result of his efforts that the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos in January—for the first time, I think—had the impact and opportunities of climate change as a major item on its agenda. At that meeting, he not only made a keynote speech but hosted a breakfast with 30 senior players, each from a different sector of global business, to ask them to stimulate discussion in their sector on the challenges of climate change and report back before Gleneagles, as they did.
	In February, we hosted a scientific meeting in Exeter, and the consensus of that expert group was greater certainty about global warming, which was the bad news, but that tackling it should cost less than predicted if done early enough, which was the good news. In March, we organised a round table discussion of Energy and Environment Ministers from some 20 countries with major and growing energy needs—another first—at a meeting which also drew in major players from industry and finance, as well as countries such as India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea and so on. Then, in July, at Gleneagles, the Prime Minister brokered agreement not only that all the G8 accepted that there was a consensus on the science but that global emissions should slow, stop and reverse, and that there should be an action plan to help to deliver on that agreement—a plan that engaged not only the G8 but the World Bank and International Energy Agency. I am genuinely uncertain as to whether this part of the agreement—on the outcome needed and the steps that might deliver that outcome—was the most significant achievement from Gleneagles, or whether it was the equally unprecedented agreement to a follow-up dialogue to explore what might be done to move forward on tackling climate change.
	Bluntly, therefore, what makes no sense at all, despite the right hon. Gentleman's measured tone, is the rather ridiculous suggestion in the motion that after all that personal commitment of time and energy—made in the face of much discouragement—towards a future international agreement, the Prime Minister has suddenly abandoned the idea. It certainly makes it a little hard to take as seriously as I would like to do the right hon. Gentleman's recent suggestions that we should rise above party political jibing and strive for a cross-party consensus on climate change.

Norman Baker: Far be it from me to interpret the Conservative motion, but I read the concern expressed in the first line not as a criticism of what the Prime Minister has done, as many of us recognise that he has done a lot this year, but as a concern that in his efforts to achieve an international agreement, he might have concluded that the way to do so is to abandon the idea of mandatory national targets.

Margaret Beckett: I know of no evidence that backs up that concern. There has been much over-interpretation of some remarks that the Prime Minister made in New York, not least, I might add—I am not sure whether this is wholly clear to Members of the House—as a result of a rush of blood to the head on the part of some in the United States who still cling to the notion that there is no such problem as climate change, and who leapt immediately to the conclusion that the Prime Minister was agreeing with them, which would certainly be a first.

Peter Ainsworth: We should not labour this point, but the Prime Minister did say that he was changing his mind, did he not?

Margaret Beckett: As I said, there has been a certain amount of over-interpretation. The Prime Minister has not changed his mind about the need for future international action in any way, shape or form.

Oliver Letwin: We may be making significant progress here, and perhaps I have misinterpreted the Prime Minister. Is the Secretary of State saying that the Government still believe that it is necessary to reach, after whatever technological investment programme might take place, a series of national and binding targets across a wide range of nations, including the United States, China and India?

Margaret Beckett: If I may, I will deal later in my speech with the shape of how international discussions might go forward, as I think that people are getting several steps ahead of themselves. I will say two things that might reassure both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman. First, in the discussions referred to in New York, the Prime Minister said specifically:
	"I don't think all the answers lie in just developing the science and technology."
	He then talked about how we move forward post-Kyoto.
	We can all, I hope, sign up—albeit with varying degrees of commitment—to the need to tackle the impact of climate change. As was said in an intervention, that is the easy bit, but there is not much point in reaching a consensus on the problem if, the minute difficult decisions on what to do about it come along, the would-be consensus rats and runs away. So let us rise above such silliness in the motion—I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point about misinterpretation and hoping to be proved wrong—and consider what this consensus might consist of, apart from agreement that there is a problem.
	The Conservatives seem at last to agree—the right hon. Gentleman said that this has been his party's position for some time—with the Government's major target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by about 2050, as set out in our energy White Paper. He is being unjust to himself in suggesting that this is a longstanding Conservative commitment; but however recent it is, it is certainly welcome. But what else is there? I looked for clues in the motion, which talks about an independent body to monitor emissions. Indeed, that was the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but it is not entirely clear to me why he thinks that such a body would be a major help.
	Our emissions data are already compiled according to international guidelines, and they are scrutinised by—among others—the National Audit Office and are subject to international peer review, under guidelines agreed by the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Far from there being concern about the UK's work on emissions monitoring, it has an outstanding international reputation.
	So is there something more for which the right hon. Gentleman is calling? Perhaps I am now over-interpreting, but a clue might be found in a 20 September article in The Daily Telegraph. Charles Clover reported what was said to be the right hon. Gentleman's view that
	"an independent body, like the Bank of England"—
	this takes us back to a point made in an earlier intervention on the right hon. Gentleman—
	"should preside over the transition to a low carbon economy",
	which should be achieved through a 3 per cent. per year cut in emissions. But although the Bank of England's independent role in the economy is crucial, it is specific and limited. It sets the level of interest rates, so what would this new body control and how would it control it? If the intention is to influence the price of carbon, would such a body control fuel prices under the next Conservative Government? Would that include controlling the price of oil, gas and coal?

Oliver Letwin: I have undoubtedly made myself insufficiently clear, given that I failed earlier to persuade the right hon. Lady of my point. What I meant to say is that there needs to be a body that predicts—in the way that the Bank of England predicts, through its probabilistic analyses—the chance of the Government of the day's meeting a set of year-by-year targets relating to the policies of the time. That is a very specific and extraordinarily important role which is not based on current monitoring, but which looks forward to 2050.

Margaret Beckett: If I may return to the analogy that the right hon. Gentleman himself drew, such a role forms a small part of any comparison with the role of the Bank of England, which, as I said, does not merely comment but holds some of the levers of power. I am slightly disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman's response, and I am inclined to turn back on him an observation that he made to me. Perhaps it would have been better to secure agreement among his own Front Benchers—I take his point about policy entirely, and I do not criticise the Conservatives for reviewing their policies—and to have established a more detailed proposition that is genuinely in keeping with how the Bank of England operates.
	I did wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman had it in mind that such a body would advise on building standards, so as to ensure greater energy efficiency. I take his point that he was confining his remarks to the question of monitoring. However, listening to this exchange—I look forward with great interest to hearing the supporting comments of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—I wonder whether, when we next hear from the spokesmen for the fuel protests, both parties will urge the Government not to be flexible. That would certainly be interesting.
	Let me make it plain, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would welcome a real cross-party consensus on climate change. We would probably never reach the stage of total agreement on every policy, but a recognition of the need for harsh choices and a willingness to face up to them would definitely be steps in the right direction. I accept—my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Ed Balls) may be less keen—that the Opposition include those who dislike the climate change levy. For the sake of this debate, let us say fair enough, but what would they do instead that might deliver the same results? Let us not forget that, for all the criticism—some of it unjustified—of the Government's record, our technical advice is that, without the totality of the measures in our climate change programme or something of equal magnitude to replace them, our carbon dioxide emissions will be 5 per cent. up on 1990, instead of more than 5 per cent. down.

Doug Henderson: My right hon. Friend is moving in the right direction on tackling the problems of climate change that lie ahead of us, but many problems are already with us. On 30 June, my constituency experienced a major flood and our sewers were unable to deal with peak loading as a result of the heavy rain. The water authority told me that the problem was not unique to Newcastle, but probably applied around the country. Has my right hon. Friend or her colleagues in other Departments made an assessment of what needs to be done, and has she talked to the water authorities about those matters?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot honestly say whether a specific assessment of the problems arising in Newcastle has been made. I am sorry to learn about how my hon. Friend's constituents have been affected, but I can certainly confirm that it provides a classic example of the potential impact of climate change. We are seeing signs that the nature of our rainfall is changing. The way in which we handle it, the nature of our infrastructure and water storage, as well as our water use, must be kept under review. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government view those issues as of considerable importance. We are concerned not just with flood prevention schemes and the like, but with much wider issues. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the overall impact of these problems.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am certainly prepared for the time being to give both Opposition spokesmen and their parties the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, I will even stop pointing out—not least because I suspect that it is as much an embarrassment as it should be to the hon. Member for Lewes—that the Liberals campaigned successfully against a congestion charge in Edinburgh. On domestic policy, I give them both notice—I shall leave the point here—that we will judge them as they claim to judge us: by their actions and not just by their words.
	I want to turn now to the international scene, where I hope we might find common ground more readily, as long as we all understand the true position. A year ago, there was no willingness in the international community even to mention the future beyond 2012—the end of the first Kyoto commitment period—let alone to begin to think about dealing with it. Before anyone on any side of the House grabs for the easy option and starts muttering about George Bush, let me be crystal clear about it, so there can be no doubt in any part of this House. I mean no willingness outside the ranks of the EU and those countries that can already see their very existence threatened by global warming.
	The fact that at Gleneagles not only the G8 themselves—itself no small feat—but Brazil, India, China, South Africa and Mexico agreed to begin to engage in just such a discussion is, frankly, a major and personal diplomatic achievement by our Prime Minister. Nor are we just pursuing dialogue. It was a UK-led initiative—it has not had much publicity, so it is entirely possible that hon. Members are not aware of it—in which, so far, my Department is bearing the lion's share, with support from the Department of Trade and Industry. At the EU-China summit in September, the initiative led to the signing of an agreement to pilot a clean-coal power plant in China. That is a massive and practical step forward.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has signed a climate change partnership agreement with the Government of China. Moreover, during the UK's presidency of the EU, we also agreed a joint initiative with India. I know that I am saying the obvious, but it is always wise for the House to bear it in mind that countries such as those have immense and pressing problems of development, even without the already damaging impacts—in the present and the future—of climate change.

Robert Goodwill: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Chinese have also just completed two new nuclear power stations? Does she think that the UK can continue to meet its global warming commitments without new nuclear build?

Margaret Beckett: I do not intend to get drawn into that argument today, but I am very conscious that China is building about one new power plant per week. It is not concentrating on nuclear power, but is drawing on every possible technology. China has vast coal reserves, and will continue to use them. It is looking at renewables, but the Chinese Government are so seized of the need for energy supply that they are looking at every alternative, including nuclear. Other countries are likely to go down that road.

Theresa Villiers: If the Prime Minister decides to go for the nuclear option as part of the Government's climate change strategy, does the Secretary of State think that he will be able to take his parliamentary party with him?

Margaret Beckett: I think that we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. I am sure that the hon. Lady is up to speed with these issues, even though she was not in the House when the Government produced our energy White Paper some two years ago. We said then that it would be most unwise to close down the nuclear option. However, if that option had to be reconsidered, we also committed ourselves to a very thorough examination of all the implications of such a course of action. We also committed ourselves to publishing a special White Paper on the matter, but I assure her that we are not quite at that point at present.
	I have referred to the huge difficulties faced by China and India, but they are only two of the countries that demonstrate the other side of the coin. The potential silver lining to the vast cloud that has been described is the immense opportunity available to them to make use of assistance to develop in a sustainable manner, and the immense opportunity that those vast markets provide for UK and EU businesses.
	Those countries, however, demonstrate another aspect that is absolutely pertinent to the prospects for international agreement. As I said a moment ago, China and India have massive needs, and those needs are, and will remain, the priority for their peoples. They are also proud and independent states, but they are only two among the 189 countries sending delegations to the Montreal meeting of the UN convention on climate change. I shall be frank with the House: to attempt to lecture or instruct those 189 countries about what they should do in respect of climate change—let alone to prescribe how they should go about doing it— would be grossly impertinent and probably utterly counterproductive.
	A worrying tendency is emerging in the public debate on this topic—I do not accuse the right hon. Member for West Dorset in this respect, as he showed no signs of it today—to take all these matters for granted. I therefore remind the House that Montreal will be the first meeting of the parties that have ratified the Kyoto protocol, which came into force only in February of this year. That alone makes it a truly historic event. The most important and urgent business at Montreal will be to reach agreement on the final legal underpinnings of the protocol—something that could not be done until it came into force. Moreover, that process of achieving agreement to those legal underpinnings is not without difficulty, controversy and disagreement.
	By all means let us lift our eyes from time to time to the peaks and pinnacles that further global agreement might, in time, make attainable. I give further reassurance to the right hon. Member for West Dorset that the Government pledged in our election manifesto to pursue such an agreement, but we must not fail to observe and tackle the icefields and crevasses that yawn at our feet, and which stand between us and such an outcome.

David Chaytor: On the question of the ice fields and crevasses and looking forward beyond 2012, is my right hon. Friend attracted to the concept of contraction and convergence as a means of bringing on board China, India, Brazil and other powerful developing countries? Does she believe that the basis of equal per capita rights to emit carbon should form the basis of any agreement beyond 2012?

Margaret Beckett: If I may, I will come to my hon. Friend's question in a moment. First, I want to advise, if I may, him and the House to ignore anyone who says that the Montreal meeting will be easy. It will not. They must treat with polite scepticism anyone who says that all this is simple. It is not. The only people who think that they already have all the answers—I know there are some—are, frankly, those who have not understood the question.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked me a slightly different and specific point. I can see the attractions of the idea of contraction and convergence, but it is only one of a plethora of ideas that are already in discussion. I cannot tell whether, when we finally come to whatever agreement around which might coalesce some international acceptance and understanding, some of the elements that have stimulated the proposal for contraction and convergence might be reflected. That is entirely possible but at this moment, there is as much opposition as there is support among those who would have to agree on that proposal.
	I do not say this pejoratively, but contraction and convergence is the fashionable option. It has obvious and evident attractions, but it is not the only idea around and there are many people who have great reservations. No one at all will sign up to it until they have thought carefully about the implications, not only for their own economies but for the economies of others. With genuine respect, I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the most loaded word in the English language is "fair".

Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State will recall that the globe forum that she opened before the Gleneagles summit focused on exactly that issue and that Senator McCain, a champion of climate change within the United States, nevertheless clashed with the Chinese representative, saying that he did not think that America should give up one ounce of emissions unless China did the same. Contraction and convergence is not the answer but we have to break the deadlock. Does she think that progress can be made in the near future?

Margaret Beckett: It is certainly within the capacity of the international community to begin to make progress, but it will be difficult and delicate and will require tremendous respect for the genuine concerns of all the players, not just the major ones, and a genuine recognition of the different circumstances.
	The UK Government have three criteria for the possibility of an agreement. One is that it should be robust and be able to be adjusted and so on, but one of the key criteria is that the agreement should be capable of reflecting the very different national circumstances of different players. That is why I did not answer the perfectly fair and legitimate question put to me by the right hon. Member for West Dorset about whether we expected to negotiate a future Kyoto that is, in a sense—some people are talking about this as the only option—exactly like the existing Kyoto agreement but bigger. We are a long way from concluding that that is either the only or even the best way to go, for some of the reasons that I hope I have begun to identify—reasons that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) recognises from the international dialogue. It is not as simple as saying we should have a bigger number or give everybody else targets along the same lines. We have to think carefully about what will work, what will be effective and what will be genuinely acceptable as well as effective.

Nick Hurd: Does the Secretary of State think that a global agreement will be in place by 2012 to replace Kyoto?

Margaret Beckett: If it is not, we will be in deep trouble. As I said in all seriousness a moment ago, less than a year ago it was not possible to get more than a handful of countries to sign up even to the notion of talking about the future. We have come a long way in the past year and it is not sycophantic but accurate to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have played a huge role in creating the extra momentum. Indeed, that is very much recognised outside this country. We will have a better idea of progress after the first meeting of the Gleneagles dialogue, when we will begin to see the scope for practical partnerships to begin to deliver action on the issues and whether that is shaping people's approach.
	One reason why I hope today's debate will lead to a more mature and sensible dialogue in the UK, which will focus on the real hard choices we need to make and how to convince the country that we need to make them, is that it is not only world leaders who need to face up to the challenges as well as the opportunities of climate change. We the people need to help support and facilitate that process.
	In the slightly different context of the campaign to make poverty history, Bob Geldof made a comment that also applies to the campaign against climate change. He was asked to name and shame the people who were not prepared to do enough to tackle global poverty. His answer was:
	"It is all of us. The shame is ours, the name is the world."
	That is not a bad thought on which to end.

Norman Baker: I welcome the tone of the debate. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) introduced it in a consensual and constructive way, and the Secretary of State responded in mostly the same tone. I shall say honestly and straightforwardly at the beginning of my contribution that I am here today because I regard climate change as the most important and challenging issue facing us.
	I do not think that normal politics, as we have had it so far, is delivering the answers. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but I am not here to make party points. I am here because we need some agreement on the way forward in the interests of all our countrymen and women and the world at large. That is the spirit in which I stand here today, and I ask the Secretary of State to accept that. It is also why I have written to her and to the right hon. Member for West Dorset, and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) wrote to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition before the election.
	It would be easy, if we wanted to do so, to pick out something wrong with the Conservatives' policy, something that a Liberal Democrat council has done, or some target that the Government have failed to meet. I am not interested in doing that today. We must find not the differences between us, but the common ground. We must find a constructive way forward that helps to reduce carbon emissions in this country. It is my judgment, and—I believe—that of the right hon. Member for West Dorset, that a consensual approach would help the Government to take the decisions that they may want to take but fear to take because of public reaction.

Celia Barlow: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about reducing carbon emissions, and that is very encouraging. However, can he explain why the Liberal Democrat manifesto in May contained nothing about reducing emissions by 20 per cent., which the Government have pledged to do within five years?

Norman Baker: I assure the hon. Lady that Lib Dem policy is a 60 per cent. cut by 2050—a target that is equal to or better than Labour's. However, I am not here to trade issues about whose manifesto had better targets and I ask the hon. Lady and her colleagues to accept that. Let us try to find a new way forward.
	We are at the beginning of a Parliament. We have an opportunity over four years to try to do something constructive, to rise above our normal exchanges and collectively, among all parties, to find some way in this new era of politics, as I hope it will be, to achieve a consensus to bring about real cuts in emissions. That should be our objective.
	Things are becoming serious. I will not regale the House with all the science, but Members will have seen information produced by the Tyndale centre over the summer. Eight per cent. of the Arctic ice cap is disappearing every decade and there will soon be no ice at all at the North Pole. The ice sheet is thinning in Antarctica. Snow is disappearing on Kilimanjaro. The evidence is there for all to see. The ice is going so quickly that we can see it disappearing before our very eyes. We have to do something about it.
	Scientists in every country of the world are saying not only that climate change is a reality—that is now accepted—but that their predictions about climate change were an underestimate. The situation is worse than they thought and things are getting worse faster than they thought. That is the reality.
	It was depressing to listen to Prime Minister's questions today, because not one MP or party leader mentioned the environment or climate change. That is the elephant in the room and we have to grasp it—if we can grasp an elephant. We have to address the issue. We cannot go on pretending that it is not there. We must do something different.
	I am not making party points about the UK position. The Government have introduced strategies to try to deal with climate change and have, in many senses, given leadership, but we are missing our targets for carbon emissions, which have gone up over the past three years. There are problems with aviation to which no one has found a solution. The evidence is that if aviation emissions continue at their present rate the increase will wipe out all the gains that would have been made if the Government's other targets had been met. That is how serious the problem is. These are really big issues and no solutions are forthcoming, because they are politically difficult. We must make it politically easier to take the right decisions. If the three parties can reach consensus we have more chance of convincing the public—to pick up a point made by Conservative Members earlier—of the need to take action, and we shall take the public with us.

Margaret Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that in fact we have proposals for tackling aviation. We believe that we should try to integrate aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme. Only a few days ago, the Commission published a communication that suggests that it too thinks that is the way forward. The approach of the Environment Council is not wholly clear, but if we can make a start on such proposals in the EU it could have a huge impact.

Norman Baker: I agree that that is one of the ways forward. The Secretary of State will know that the objective of including aviation in emissions trading is shared by all three parties—an example of consensus.

Ian Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this great accord that we are trying to achieve might be destroyed by our attitudes to nuclear power alone?

Norman Baker: No, because it is unrealistic to expect that as a consequence of discussing such matters and trying to find a common base all three parties will produce identical policies. That is impossible and it would be pointless to try to achieve it. However, we can reach agreement on some essentials; for example, on the science, on the 60 per cent. cut in carbon emissions, on aviation and the emissions trading scheme and on more money for energy efficiency. There are many things on which we can agree. I want a solid foundation to be laid and for us to communicate that to the public. We could even build a couple of storeys on that foundation and each of the three parties could build their own different structures on those storeys. Some will include nuclear power; others will include something else. It does not matter. What matters is that we stress our common agreement rather than always picking on differences and reducing the debate to saying, "You're wrong about nuclear power or you're right about something else." That is not productive. Let us try to find out what we have in common.
	It might be appropriate to quote Churchill, given that he served as a Liberal MP and as a Conservative MP. He said, of a different matter:
	"The era of procrastination  . . . of soothing and baffling expedience, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences."—[Official Report, 12 November 1936; Vol. 317, c. 1117.]
	That is where we are now with climate change, which is the driver that needs to bring us together. Normal national politics has not delivered. We in our own parties have attempted to grasp the solution, but no one has delivered the cuts in emissions and the approach that is necessary given the threat that we face. So let us, as political parties, find what we have in common, rather than the differences. I welcome the fact that, in response to my letter, the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for West Dorset, has said, "Yes, let's try to do that", because doing so is not easy. It would be much easier to find differences and to go on about congestion charges in Edinburgh and so on. Such things are easy to find, but that is not constructive, and the public would not thank us for doing so.
	I stress that, as far as I am concerned—I think that I speak for the right hon. Member for West Dorset as well—the motion is not about attacking the Government. We are interested not in doing that, but in doing something constructive. We want the Secretary of State on board because she has expertise and any arrangement must eventually have the Government on board if it is to carry weight with the public. If all three parties worked together and agreed in some shape or form, it would help to communicate the message to the public and it would be easier to take the difficult decisions that are necessary. Such decisions are sometimes necessary for the long term, but they may also have short-term political consequences. I do not pretend that all the differences will disappear, that everything will be sweetness and light and that there will be no difficulties about certain issues—of course, there will—but let us try to go some way along that road.

Robert Goodwill: The fact remains, however, that 25 per cent. of our energy is produced using nuclear power and that, by 2020, only Sizewell B will not have been decommissioned. How can we have a cohesive energy production policy within the line of Kyoto if we do not replace that nuclear capacity? Although I am pleased that the Government are objectively considering new nuclear build, the Liberal Democrats seem to have ruled that out, despite the facts.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman says, "despite the facts". In fact, we have ruled that out, but for what we believe are very good reasons. However, rather than concentrate on the differences, let us analyse what we agree with in the energy mix. We agree with quite a lot of it, so let us try to make progress on that.

David Chaytor: Before we move on, let us set the record straight. The nuclear contribution to British energy is not 25 per cent.; it is slightly more than 20 per cent. of electricity production.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which is now on the record.
	Let me turn to the reply that I received from the Secretary of State. I am grateful to her for the fact that her letter arrived yesterday. She said that she would
	"welcome a cross-party consensus on climate change."
	She used those words this afternoon. I wrote them down in shorthand, so I have got them accurately recorded. I welcome the fact that she said that. She may be rather sceptical this afternoon—fair enough. It is up to us to prove that we are serious about this business, and I hope that she will respond accordingly.
	The Secretary of State's letter includes a number of reasons why she was not prepared to join us at this juncture. In one paragraph, she refers to uncertainties in the two Opposition parties: first, the Conservative leadership election; secondly, that party's position on a number of key issues; and, thirdly, the Liberal Democrats' policy review. As for the latter two reasons, I reiterate that we should seek out the many areas of agreement, rather than trying to identify one or two issues that she would use as a veto on any agreement. We do not need to have everything agreed. So, with respect, I do not think that those are very good reasons. As for the Conservative leadership campaign, I sincerely hope that the right hon. Member for West Dorset will still be in his position after that process has concluded. That would be good for continuity's sake.
	The Secretary of State's letter also refers to the position of India and China, and I know that she takes that seriously. We have exchanged views on this before and I recognise and accept how sensitive the issue is. I recognise absolutely that we cannot start to dictate what those countries should have. I spent some time over the summer in India meeting Indian politicians and business leaders on the very issue of climate change. I came away with a strong view of how they feel. Of course, the issue is to guide all the different ships into harbour, and that is not necessarily easy to do.
	The Indian politicians whom I met said that they were potentially very responsive to what the EU was doing. They recognised that we in Europe were giving a lead, and they were also quite happy with the idea of contraction and convergence, which they regard as a fair and equitable way forward. I am sure that the Secretary of State has heard the same response. However, they were vociferous—that is a fair word to use—about the attitude of the American Administration. The Indians take the view that they do not see why they should make sacrifices when the American Administration are not doing the same. That seems to be a perfectly fair position to take.
	I want to digress slightly to pick up what the Secretary of State said about the Prime Minister. I, for one, am perfectly happy to accept that he has been going out of his way to deal with the issue internationally. I am happy to accept that he has got this on the agenda and that he has made some progress. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to say that. I wish he could make even more progress.
	I made the point, however, in the last Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate before the election that I am genuinely worried. The Prime Minister is playing a difficult game diplomatically to try to get everyone corralled in one place and then get them going in the same direction at the same time. I do not underestimate the difficulties of that. On the one hand, he has countries such as India and China and, on the other, he has the United States, which takes an unhelpful view. My genuine fear is that, to try to bring the US Administration on board, he will be prepared to sacrifice the idea of mandatory targets in some shape or form to make sure that they can sign a piece of paper. I understand why he would want to do that, but it would not be a satisfactory outcome.

Margaret Beckett: I understand the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman voices, and considerable anxiety was expressed in the run-up to the Gleneagles summit by, for example, campaigners in America. In the summit's aftermath, they greatly welcomed the fact that the Prime Minister had not taken the path that the hon. Gentleman had identified as the one that had concerned him and those campaigners. The Prime Minister had, indeed, maintained his push for the kind of forward look that everyone wants. However, I caution the hon. Gentleman against the assumption that mandatory targets for everybody are necessarily the only way forward. We are nowhere near that conclusion yet.

Norman Baker: I accept that we are nowhere near that conclusion, but I remain to be convinced that it is not the right mechanism. There are mandatory targets for countries that signed up to Kyoto, very few of which are meeting them. I fear what the effect will be if there are no mandatory targets at all.

Margaret Beckett: I do not want to nit-pick, but there are mandatory targets for the developed countries that signed up to Kyoto. A great many countries signed the Kyoto protocol, under which there are not mandatory targets. If the hon. Gentleman has had discussions in India, he will know that the notion of such targets is extraordinarily sensitive.

Norman Baker: I accept that. Such targets are sensitive, not least because of the US position. The point that I was trying to make is that, even where there are mandatory targets for the developed countries, including this country and those in the EU, very few countries will meet them. If mandatory targets cannot even bring the ship into harbour, it is not clear what other mechanism will achieve that end. However, I am willing to be convinced and to see what comes out of negotiations. Like the Secretary of State, I am looking for results that end up with significant carbon cuts across the world in an attempt to stave off a growing crisis. That is our common objective.
	I have referred to the Secretary of State's letter in which she mentioned the Conservative leadership election, Liberal Democrat policy and Conservative positions on the issue. The reasons she gives for not entering into an agreement at this point are not dissimilar to those advanced by the "Today" programme for not covering the item this morning. I sometimes wonder whether the "Today" programme is entirely independent of the Government, but that might be unduly cynical of me. Be that as it may, I am glad that the initiative that we have launched has received coverage beyond the "Today" programme.

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has called for a cross-party approach and he and many others have talked about the need to engage the public to galvanise the political process. Does his party's approach on engaging the public continue to be sending strong signals through tax policy—taxing 4x4s and flights—or does he agree with our approach that people's hearts and minds need to be won first, not least by educating consumers about the consequences of their choices?

Norman Baker: There is a range of ways in which the public need to be brought on board, so I shall try to cover that wide topic briefly. Education of course has a role. Schools have a role and the public sector can lead by example through its public procurement, such as by fitting photovoltaic cells on school roofs. I would like the Government to produce leaflets to put through doors to educate the public, in the same way as they do with concerns about terrorism. However, market mechanisms can also play a significant role, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues agree that if we made it cheaper to do the right thing and more expensive to do the wrong thing even members of the public who had not bought the science would nevertheless respond in a way that would generate the right result. By the way, that would not involve increasing taxation. My party has suggested creating a section of the Treasury that is designed to examine exactly how taxation influences environmental behaviour, with a view to reorganising such taxation to ensure that it is revenue neutral and achieves such ends.
	A third way in which the public can be educated is through not what we can do, but what the media can do. The media do not always approach the matter as they should—I have made that point before and do not hesitate to make it again. They either do not cover the subject at all, or cover it in a way that does not make connections. The increased risk of floods has been widely reported in the past 24 hours, but none of the news media has made much of a connection between that and climate change. Alternatively, the media report climate change as a straight science story with two pages on how the polar ice caps are disappearing, but without any indication of what politicians of any party should do about that. The media thus have a role in educating the public.
	We are at the beginning of a new Parliament, so we have an opportunity to do something new. The right hon. Member for West Dorset and I are genuinely trying to reach out in some sort of fog as best we can to find a way forward that will provide a different sort of politics to deal with this most significant of issues. We are making a genuine attempt and, as politicians, we owe it to the public to do that. A policy of business as usual will not deliver action on the environment to tackle climate change effectively. We are convinced that our approach is the way forward and we genuinely want the Government to join us.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which comes into operation now. However, I calculate that we have about 62 minutes until the winding-up speeches must start. Eight hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, so, if they are feeling charitable, I shall leave the maths to them.

Eric Martlew: I shall bear your comments in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Given the consensus in the Chamber and the view that we need a new political approach, perhaps the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will withdraw his motion so that we will not need a vote. That would put the Government on the back foot and would certainly be new politics.
	It is well known that I do not make great visionary speeches in the Chamber and talking about the problems of 2050 is something that tends to be lost on my constituents. I wish to speak about my experience of what I believe to be climate change. Those hon. Members who can remember past the general election know that Carlisle experienced horrendous flooding on 8 January. About 3,000 houses were flooded and two elderly constituents died a dreadful death by drowning in their homes. Some £500 million of damage was caused. Jobs were lost. It was a staggering blow.
	The Government responded well. My hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, who is responsible for dealing with floods, came to the constituency before it had stopped raining and £30 million was made available for flood defences. Six Ministers, four of them Secretaries of State, visited us. We dealt with the flood well. We also received an extra £30 million for our schools.
	We thought that it was a flood that took place once every 150 years. It had happened and we could put it behind us. The Deputy Prime Minister came to the city and said that it should have a renaissance. We were to have a new fire station, new police station, new commercial centre and new civic centre, because they were all flooded. We were looking forward to that, but yesterday the rain started again. The storm clouds came over Carlisle, settled over Cumbria and we had 4 in of rain.
	Those facts do not bear any resemblance to what really happens to people when they are flooded. I arrived home from London and someone said, "Do you want a boat trip round your house?" After the flooding went away, we went into the houses, took our personal possessions, which we had had for many years, and threw them into a big skip. But that was just the start. The builders then came in. They tore the house to pieces, ripped up floorboards and took down the walls. Massive heaters were put in the house to dry it out before it could be reconstructed. It was horrendous. Some 66 per cent. of the people flooded in my constituency in January are still not back in their homes. That is the reality of a massive flood—and of global warming.
	It is global warming because the same thing has happened again. Fortunately, when I came to the Chamber, the rain had stopped, but last night my constituents lived in fear. I am not exaggerating—I am not prone to exaggeration—but they would not have slept. I was in London and I did not sleep. The curtains would have been open and they would have gone to the window every half hour to check whether it was still raining. The local bus company moved its £3 million-worth of new buses out of the area. I talked to senior managers at United Utilities today who said that the climate has changed and Carlisle is no worse than many other areas. My tale could well be repeated in other constituencies if we do not do something about the problem.
	As I said, I am not a great visionary, but a practical politician. Some things we can do quickly. Although tackling emissions will take great debate by statesmen and wise counsel, we have to be ready for more floods. There is a commitment to provide flood defences, but they will not be up for a while. However, yesterday's problem was not with the rivers. The Environment Agency is in charge of those and they did not flood. The problem lay with the run-off of surface water, the drains and the sewers.
	The practical difficulty is that the county council and the city council have different responsibilities for the different gullies. They argue about who should clean what and not enough are cleaned. The city council is responsible for the drains and United Utilities, the privatised utility supplier—privatisation does not help in this situation—is responsible for the sewers.
	We therefore lack the necessary co-ordination to deal with the practical difficulties. If we do not get that right—I know that the Secretary of State is listening—we will fail to deal with future floods. Anyone representing a constituency with a flood risk should look at the reports about what happened in Carlisle, because they provide a blueprint for the way in which the Government should react as well as a warning about what can happen.
	I sometimes think that our priorities are wrong. Many environmentalists in the Chamber have been in the vanguard, and have pushed for action on climate change. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) raised the issue of sewerage and flash floods, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). United Utilities said that we must spend £3.5 billion in the next five years to improve environmental water quality in the north-west, but we have only £100 million to spend on improvements to the sewerage system. I live in the centre of Carlisle and when I look out of my windows I can see otters and kingfishers, which is tremendous. It may be necessary, however to reduce the £3.5 billion that we spend on water quality and put more money into improving the sewerage system. We need to reconstruct the drainage and the sewerage systems in most of our cities, as they were built at a time when people did not experience flash floods or intense rainfall. Another option is to increase costs to pay for those improvements, because United Utilities and the other privatised utilities will always seek a profit.
	I hope that people will treat my warning seriously. We can introduce practical measures quickly, but we must resolve the underlying problems. Wind power has been mentioned. In my constituency, a local company, Pirelli, has received planning permission for a large wind turbine that will cut its costs by about £750,000 a year. I think that that was the right decision. Having had nuclear power in Cumbria for many years, I believe that we should keep an open mind about it. Environmentalists who say that we should have nothing to do with it are probably wrong, and might think differently if they shared my experiences. The Liberal Democrats cannot claim to build a consensus while ruling out nuclear power. That is simply not feasible.
	I hope that I have warned the House about the practical problems of climate change. The right hon. Member for West Dorset would give a true sign of consensus if he withdrew the motion.

Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on tabling the motion and enabling the House to debate this important issue and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on his cross-party initiative. This is clearly an issue that transcends party politics and I welcome the joint approach of the Opposition parties, which, I hope, will be embraced by the Government in due course.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who spoke eloquently about the local nature of climate change. When it comes home in that way, people really experience its effects, but it is a huge global issue. Every time that we discuss climate change in the House, the problem has become worse. Hurricane Katrina may or may not have been caused by climate change, but it gave us a preview of life after extreme climate change, including the collapse of social order, the loss of life and the destruction of property, all of which the scientists have warned us about.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Hurricane Katrina reminds us that, particularly in developing countries, it is often the poorest who are most immediately at risk because of climate change and face more horrendous consequences than us?

Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right. Last year, a bunch of NGOs produced an extremely good report called, "Up in Smoke", which forcefully made that point.
	The hon. Member for Lewes touched on the disappearing Artic ice cap, which is disastrous for indigenous species and for people who live there. The situation is worse than that, because the disappearing ice desalinates the north Atlantic, which could switch off the gulf stream. If we want to live in a climate like that of Labrador, that is the way to do it. The disappearing Arctic ice cap also reduces the Earth's ability to reflect light back to the sun, which creates a vicious circle whereby the ocean warms up, the capacity to absorb CO 2 is reduced, more ice is lost and the ocean warms up again. If the cycle continues until 2060, there is likely to be no ice at all.
	Yesterday's UN report stated that, as a result of climate change, some 50 million people may need to seek refuge elsewhere because they will be driven from their existing homes and livelihoods by deforestation and extreme flooding. It recommends creating a new status of "environmental refugee". Is the developed world ready for 50 million environmental refugees? I think not.
	The situation is bad and it is in danger of getting a great deal worse. Climate change is unlike any other economic or political problem. It concerns irreversible changes to the planet that is our common home and requires a different kind of politics and a different kind of economics. That is not the least reason why I am so pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Lewes have launched their initiative, which is a step in the right direction.
	Somebody once said, "It may not be cost-effective to save the planet, but it is probably worth trying to do anyway." That leads me to one simple observation, which is blindingly obvious but consistently overlooked by politicians and economists alike: the economy is part of the environment, not the other way round. The economy is subsidiary to the environment and until that plain truth enters the mindset of economists, industrialists and politicians, we will never attain the necessary will, determination and courage to save future generations from the consequences of our irresponsible behaviour. The challenge is massive and time is short, but the problem can be solved because the tools are there.
	We clearly need international agreements and structures, which is why the Kyoto protocol is so important. By itself, the Kyoto protocol will make only a minimal impression, but it proves that the world can more and less come together and achieve agreement on what needs to be done. It is therefore an important milestone in making progress on climate change. It is essential that work continue on developing an effective post-Kyoto international agreement and I was somewhat comforted by the Secretary of State's remarks on that point. The Prime Minister may become dispirited in his negotiations with George Bush, but he should not allow himself to be downhearted and should push on with that important work.
	It is vital to include China and India in international negotiations and future agreements. China opens a new, large coal-fired power station every five days and plans to build a further 600 power stations in the next 25 years, a period in which India wants to build about 200 and the rest of the world a further 600. If all those coal-fired power stations are built with conventional coal technology, we might as well give up our weekly trip to the recycling bin and forget about energy-efficient light bulbs. The plain truth is that the United Kingdom is responsible for only 2 per cent. of global climate change emissions. In that context, the ongoing debate about whether nuclear should be part of our energy needs seems peripheral.
	The need for international agreement to drive down CO 2 emissions is fundamental. The technologies already exist to sequester and store emissions and to convert coal to gas—we just need to make sure that they are deployed. Of course there is more that we could do nationally, at home, to play our part in meeting this great challenge and to give a lead. The fact that CO 2 emissions have risen in the UK in recent years is not only an embarrassment but a serious problem.
	I regret that the Government's new climate change programme has been delayed, but we must hope that, when it emerges, it will be radical and specific. I should like to see a far more imaginative use of fiscal measures to encourage the take-up of new technologies in transport, energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy. On 11 November, two important private Members' Bills will be a test of the Government's commitment to sustainable energy. I hope that hon. Members will make a note of that date in their diaries.
	We need an effective education programme, including formal education, but we must do more than just preach—we need to give people incentives to do the right thing, and to reward good behaviour and discourage bad behaviour. That is all part of environmental education.
	We need sensible, clear and targeted regulation. Most industries in this country, as well as the CBI—at least, it says so—now accept the need for environmental regulation, but they need to know what the Government are asking them to do, and at the moment they are making noises that suggest that they do not. Only when the Government set out a clear vision of what they expect from industry and set regulations accordingly will the investment flow. The financial sector needs to have that kind of certainty too. It is not enough just to say that technology will solve all our problems. Of course technology has a vital role to play, but for technology to develop we need investment, and for investment we need national and international systems of reward and punishment.
	We should recognise that, since climate change is a public good, there is a need for Government to back their fine words with more and better targeted support in areas such as research and development. Of course, there will always be concerns about costs, but as the Association of British Insurers—that newly converted band of eco-warriors—is so keen to remind us, the cost of doing nothing will lead to massively greater costs in years to come. Hundreds of billions of pounds are at risk if action is not taken now.
	Learning to live within environmental limits, reconciling today's economic aspirations with the forces of nature, harnessing new technology for the sake of our children and their children and forging international consensus: these are the greatest challenges facing our generation of politicians. We must not fail.

Alan Simpson: I wish that the Opposition had chosen a title for the debate that basically said, "Look, we're all in a terrible mess, and we haven't a clue how we got into it and how we get out of it, but we'd welcome a cross-party approach to the discussion." Instead, there is an unambiguous side-swipe in the wording of the motion that pulls the rug from under many of the good comments that were made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). We have to be more forthright in what we say to ourselves about our starting point.
	I was saddened to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that we should not attribute every one of the natural disasters that are happening around us to climate change. If he had listened to the advice that Professor Sir Dave King gave the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs only a year ago, he would realise that Professor King said that we are currently in the middle of a revolution of small changes. Climate change is not a future scenario; we are in it now. We must consider urgently what we do about short-term, traumatic upheavals in what we used to perceive as our seasons and our climate. Those changes can result in flash flooding and drought in the same month, and we have never been politically or constitutionally prepared for this. We are experiencing the consequences today of climate change, which, I fear, will become worse by the year for the rest of our lives. We must tackle that.
	We also know from our scientists that the challenge that we face for the first 50 years of the century is reducing our ecological footprint on the planet by two thirds. That is a non-negotiable point for them about our contribution to the planet's survival. Today, the United Nations said that, by the end of the decade, there will be 50 million environmental refugees as a result of climate change. We need a new heading under which we acknowledge the displacement of people as a result of a set of economic assumptions—largely, the framework of economic thinking that prevailed in the second half of the 20th century—that have driven us to our current position. We all face that crisis.
	I believe that the crisis will be worse than Parliament has been willing to acknowledge so far. That will become apparent persistently in the next 10 years through crises in food security, water management and energy security. I want to make several propositions on a cross-party basis and I hope that my comments are deemed to be either equally offensive or encouraging to Members of all parties. However, they need to be made in a debate that should have space for a few heretics.
	Globalisation makes the crisis worse. The global dash for cash has resulted in a helter-skelter economy, where goods move huge distances in ever greater pursuit of lower costs and lower environmental responsibilities. That simply accelerates the crisis. We will be forced to address that, whether we like it or not.

Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that could be tackled, first, if World Trade Organisation rules were altered to take account of the environment and secondly, if the proper environmental costs of transport were incorporated?

Alan Simpson: Yes, it could be done if the WTO became a world sustainable environment organisation but I see no prospect of that. The tragedy is that global institutions are intellectually out to lunch. They are hostages to corporate greed and those who write the history of our time will probably describe it as an era of economic cannibalism in which society set about trying to consume itself. The prospect of change driven by global institutions is remote.
	Despite all that, the Labour Government have made some landmark decisions nationally. Sadly, they have often been undermined or compromised by economic short-termism. It is worth putting on record that only a Labour Government made the commitment in law to eradicate all fuel poverty in Britain by 2016. DEFRA has consistently tried to push that programme despite the fact that its budget has been cut and that it has been undermined by contradictory decisions by other Departments. For example, the decision to build a range of £60,000 houses that will be exempt from thermal insulation standards is nonsense. We might have avoided that if it had been up to DEFRA rather than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Sadly, at the same time as making a terrific set of commitments on fuel poverty, Parliament has promoted a growth in aviation, the carbon consequences of which wipe out all other gains. We also have economic policies that actively promote a huge growth in global product miles, without making any attempt to consider the carbon content of those product miles or the environmental impact on areas in the south that are pushed into supplying for the north long before they can feed themselves.
	In this current Parliament, two laudable private Members' Bills on sustainable energy and on micro-generation might well be spiked or talked out—sadly, I fear, by opposition from those on my own Benches—because while their ideas are desirable, the resources involved are uncertain. So those Bills might well not reach the statute book.
	Against that background, we must engage, with urgency and excitement, with the changes that need to be made. Many of those changes are already happening, some outside Parliament and outside this country. I have spoken on other occasions about the work that is being carried out internationally on food security. Over the past 10 years or more, there have been phenomenal achievements, particularly by the European Slow Food movement, on internationalising the case for reinvesting in local and sustainable food systems, strengthening food accountability, shortening food miles, reducing the congestion and pollution that result from the long-distance trans-shipment of goods, and reconnecting with the sustainability of the land itself.
	Having registered that point, I want to focus on energy and housing. I have been doing quite a lot to address the questions of how we can recycle water and generate energy for ourselves in our own living situations. However, the more work that I have done on this, the more I have discovered that other people are already way ahead of me. In Berlin, for instance, 75 per cent. of all new buildings have solar panels built into their design. Toronto is dealing with the problems of summer heat by removing the air conditioning systems from buildings and replacing them with water cooling systems using water drawn from Lake Ontario. There are some fantastically imaginative schemes building renewable and sustainable energy systems into the way in which people think about how they live.
	This country has two grounds for claiming to be a global leader. One—perversely for me, as a northerner—is to be found in Woking. Over the past 13 years, Woking has moved quietly towards being energy self-sufficient. It now produces 135 per cent. of its own energy needs, entirely—I think—from sustainable and renewable sources. Within the next couple of years, it is going out of the national grid because it found that every £1 worth of energy that it was putting into the grid was costing £7 to £10 to claim back out. To understand why that was happening, we have only to look at the national system of energy production. There we discover that 70 per cent. of the energy inputs into our energy industry go up in smoke. If we look at any power station, we can see this happening. The national grid transmission system leaks like a sieve. That is not the model that we need for the 21st century.
	In Denmark, 40 per cent. of energy supply already comes from local energy systems, and in the Netherlands, the figure is 50 per cent. However, world leadership in this regard is to be found here in merry old London, where the Labour loyalist, Ken Livingstone, has pinched the borough engineer from Woking and appointed him as his new climate change adviser, and accepted the challenge to make London energy self-sufficient within a decade. Production will probably come from biodigesters or bioreactors, rather than incinerators, but it will not require a jot of nuclear power. Not one jot. That is because local energy systems can already cope with the energy gap that we fear. We could power this country on the energy that we throw away.
	I want to finish by making four propositions. First, I modestly proposed an Energy Markets Bill in the last Session, and I urge the Government to accept its provisions. Secondly, we should consider imposing a carbon miles quota on all airports. Thirdly, we should follow London's example in promoting local energy networks and support its global cities initiative. Fourthly, we should make building constructors and developers responsible for 50 per cent. of the energy of the buildings that they throw up. I proposed that to a conference of the building supply industry a week ago, and everyone looked at me in horror. However, I pointed out that they were probably smart enough to realise that, if they put in their own energy systems, they could probably meet the whole supply, charge more, and earn more as a result.

Nick Hurd: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who showed where we can go with a bit of energy, imagination and political leadership in terms of driving forward the sustainable energy agenda. I enjoyed his speech.
	I want to focus my remarks on the international effort and strategy on this global issue. The question seems to be: where do we invest the finite source of political energy available to tackle this most complex issue, riddled as it is with uncertainties? I detect a change in the wind. I detect it in the remarks of the Prime Minister, and in the initiatives taken by countries in Asia Pacific, Australia and America after the Gleneagles summit. This change reflects a growing realisation that we are on the wrong course—a course to failure.
	The fruit of the past 15 years of political endeavour has been the Kyoto treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said that it is an important milestone, but the closer we look at it, the more limited it appears. It will make a marginal impact on carbon concentration, and its value lies only in demonstrating international co-operation. It was holed below the waterline by the absence of the United States and the emerging giants. It creates no serious incentives for new technology. In the process of negotiation and implementation, the political machine has failed to carry the public with it. Under those circumstances, in the short term, focusing the political machine on trying to follow up that agreement with a new universal agreement on a bigger scale but on the same premise for a greener set of absolute CO 2 reductions seems highly questionable. It looks very hard to achieve—I do not know what other colleagues felt, but the remarks of the Secretary of State left me with no confidence that an international agreement would be in place by 2012. Were we to pursue that course for another agreement to negotiate absolute CO 2 reductions, it would be of limited value. Those targets will necessarily be arbitrary, as there is still too much scientific uncertainty as to what a safe level of carbon concentration is, and if they are negotiated on the same basis as Kyoto 1, the targets would be effectively unenforceable.
	Those who push for this course argue in the cause of taking out an insurance policy against catastrophic risk. It is an attractive theory, but ultimately, who buys an insurance policy that will not give certainty of covering the risk? That uncertainty is undermining the effectiveness of the political process. In terms of international strategy, I would prefer the political machine to focus on creating the conditions that will make universal agreement much more plausible. The priority must be to generate the momentum that has been lacking over the past 15 years in making a difference to the scenario of emissions, which are growing. The requirement to reduce the uncertainty of the science and economics of climate change has been absent from this debate. A huge amount has been done in the past 15 years, but ultimately what comes through to the layman is how little we know. Greater certainty is therefore an absolute priority.
	The second priority must be to accelerate the deployment and development of low-carbon technology. The good news is that the technology exists that can make a difference, but it is too expensive today. Not only is it right to focus political energy on making this technology cheaper, but it is clearly in the interests of many countries, particularly Britain. As we become an energy importer, energy security becomes increasingly important to this country. A superb and massive commercial opportunity also exists for those countries, and companies in those countries, who can see the potential in renewable technology. President Clinton's comments in the much-discussed summit in New York were bang-on the money: we will only make a difference when people smell a buck. Those conditions are not sufficiently in place at the moment. The acceleration of low-carbon technology is clearly a win-win for Britain and must be at the heart of any new international initiative.
	Talking of win-wins, surely it is time for Governments across the world to start picking the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency. It has been sitting on the branches for 20 years and every Government during that period have talked about it, yet none have delivered on it. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned the example of Woking's Conservative-led council becoming self-sufficient in energy. I encourage the Government to look at what is happening in Braintree, where another Conservative-led council has negotiated an agreement with British Gas, whereby it will offer council tax payers real money for taking on board an energy efficiency package. The early data suggest that the public are responding, and there are signs of a real breakthrough. Consumer apathy towards such a proposition is breaking down, and I hope that the Government will look closely at that example.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey pointed out, the short-term priority is the industrialisation of China, Brazil and India. The carbon intensity of that process must be minimised. Doing so is in our interests not least because of the need to deal with carbon concentrations and to reduce CO 2 emissions. However, there is also a superb commercial opportunity for those companies that can seize that initiative in all our interests.
	European Governments in particular should seize the opportunity to develop the emissions trading mechanism by giving it serious teeth. In looking at the first round of negotiations, most commentators see all the mechanism's failings. It is diluted and weak, has no teeth, does not deal with aviation and operates within very restricted sectors. There is an opportunity in Europe to develop an emissions trading scheme with teeth that can be pointed to as a global template. That is where political energy should be focused.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during what is a very interesting and constructive speech. Does he agree that the European Union has a good record, in that it is among the leaders in trying to address climate change through specific, Europe-wide policies? Does he further agree that there is a lot of merit in the proposed mandatory Europe-wide renewable energy targets, which would encourage a Europe-wide growth of renewable energy?

Nick Hurd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and it is undoubtedly true that Europe's achievements in progressing environmental regulation are impressive. In fact, the linchpin for Europe in terms the challenge and the opportunity that it faces in redefining its relevance to the new generation—the generation who must pay for such things—is greater co-operation on environmental policy. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment about the need for greater co-operation in developing renewable energy policy across Europe. I have mentioned the need to accelerate technology, and Governments can help in that regard by increasing the size of the markets available to those developing such technology.
	On the question of where political energy should be focused in the short term, there is an urgent need for one country to stand up, to promote itself as a role model and to show that emissions can be significantly reduced at an acceptable cost. Britain had that opportunity, and I say "had" because I believe that it is in danger of losing it. We can argue in an utterly useless way about the motivation behind the "dash for gas", but the reality is that it created the platform for a developed economy that is capable of reducing emissions at a very low economic cost. My charge against the Government is that they are in danger of failing that test. That is why I support the proposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that at the heart of such failure is a lack of accountability and the distant nature of the targets. I therefore wholly endorse the introduction of an independent voice into this process, so that teeth can be given to such accountability.
	Finally, I am conscious in focusing the political machine away from Kyoto 2 that it would be better if all such activity took place within the framework of a set of targets. The imperative here is for Governments to send long-term signals to the market, but we have to face the fact that pushing this global meeting towards agreement on absolute CO 2 reductions will be extremely hard. As an alternative to "contract and converge" and the various other scenarios that, in essence, still push the debate down that channel, I suggest that we investigate the feasibility and attractiveness of viewing carbon intensity as a proportion of GDP. That might be a more acceptable benchmark for the United States and the emerging giants. Many who are pressing for absolute CO 2 reductions will view that as a cop-out, but I would argue that the priority is to get some momentum behind the process of lowering the carbon intensity of economic development. In that context, focusing all our energy on pressing for absolute CO 2 reductions and for replications of Kyoto seem to me to carry huge opportunity costs.

Mark Lazarowicz: I begin by declaring an interest, in the support that I have received from the sustainable energy partnership in connection with the promotion and development of the private Member's Bill to which hon. Members have already given favourable mention. I hope that they will support both my Bill and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on 11 November.
	The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said that he had put climate change at the centre of his election address, but had received no positive response from the public. I also made climate change central, but had a more positive response from the public than he did. Over the last few months, I have become aware of the extent to which members of the public are concerned about the issue. Interest in it has clearly increased and been encouraged by events such as Hurricane Katrina. As politicians, we should recognise that the public are now demanding action from us. The notion that we are ahead of the public is no longer true. On the contrary, the public are overtaking many of us in their demand for action and their recognition of the need for action. That is why I welcome today's debate.
	I agree with the attempts to build some sort of consensus on a way forward. I certainly recognise the sincerity of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in calling for such a consensus, but I would chide him mildly. As I am not always the most consensual of people, I should point out that he said roughly the same thing today as he did in the debate of four months ago. We are entitled to expect some more positive proposals when he next speaks on the issue, and I am sure that he will introduce some specific proposals then. Whatever the reasons for trying to develop a consensus, it is clear that we must do so because many of the necessary decisions will be difficult to take if the Government do not have broad support from within Parliament and among the public at large.
	One of my fears is that it might be too easy to reach a consensus. Although it is wrong to suggest that every measure required to tackle climate change is necessarily difficult, it is equally the case that difficult choices must be made and we do not want to end up achieving a consensus at too low a level. As well as reaching consensus here, it is important to develop a movement outside Parliament.
	Other hon. Members as well as me will welcome the Stop Climate Chaos coalition, which has brought together development, climate and environmental non-governmental organisations in a campaign to develop the sort of public pressure on climate change that was so effective in the run-up to the G8. The coalition is important because it allows the possibility of bringing international pressure on Governments across the world. If we saw such an international coalition developing, we might be surprised at what could be achieved at an international level. We should certainly set the highest possible targets for international agreement on action to tackle climate change.
	I want to make three specific points about the sort of steps that we can take here and now in the UK in order to play our part both in bringing about an international response and in responding to public demand for action on these issues.
	First, the immense programme of house building resulting from Government policy and market demand presents opportunities in the near future. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) that we must use that programme to ensure that new properties have the highest standards of energy efficiency. We must also enable them to generate energy, rather than just consume it; otherwise, we will miss an opportunity to kick-start the market for renewable energy, and particularly for those micro-renewables that have such major potential to contribute to this country's energy mix.
	I hope that we will take that opportunity, which may be unique. It makes sense to do so, regardless of what international agreements may be achieved. People who take advantage of these technologies can save money, as long as the market is grown and bulk demand secured. For people on low income in particular, it makes economic sense to have energy-efficient properties which, where possible, generate their own energy rather than just consume it.
	Secondly, when the climate change programme review results are known, we must ensure that decisions are taken that set a long-term agenda. Industry and consumers need to have confidence that renewable opportunities both locally and nationally will find a response in Government policy. That must happen, whatever we feel about nuclear power.
	There is a danger that the current debate could cause uncertainty about the prospects for renewable energy and energy conservation. It is a field with great potential, and we must make sure that clear targets are set for micro-generation, and for the use of renewables at the UK level more generally. In that way, the market and consumers can have confidence that renewable energy production will remain important in the future, and that its role will not diminish. The UK has immense potential when it comes to renewables: we have made a good start, but a lot more needs to be done.
	My final point is relevant to the Government, to Back-Bench Members of all parties, and to the general public, and it is that we must be consistent. There is no point in having the best policies in the world to encourage renewables, energy conservation, recycling, and a more efficient use of energy by business and consumers if they are undermined by policies in other areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South spoke about aviation, and it is clear that the Government must reconsider their policy on airports. However, hon. Members of all parties, as well as local authorities around the country, are always calling for more airports, flights and air travel. That is not consistent with a policy that tries to address the problems of climate change.
	There is a similar problem with road travel. Today, the call is for policies to tackle climate change and control carbon emissions. Yesterday, there was a call from some Conservative Members—although it could just as easily have come from hon. Members of other parties—for more roads to be built in their particular localities. We must accept that we cannot allow ourselves to be accused of double-talk: we cannot call for tough measures to tackle climate change and carbon emissions and at the same time promote policies in our own areas that offer short-term political advantage, when in our heart of hearts we know that such policies will have an opposite effect on carbon emissions and climate change.
	As politicians, it is our duty to act and speak consistently on this matter. I am not making a party-political point, but as I said at the start of my contribution, the public expect more of us now. They will not accept a failure on our part to follow through on our commitments on these issues. It is time for us to take practical action on specific policies and respond to growing public demand. I therefore hope that we can secure consensus on the need for appropriate policies, and on action as well.

Theresa Villiers: I am delighted to follow some eloquent speakers whose knowledge and expertise so far outweigh my own. I am also delighted that the Opposition chose to debate this issue because, unlike some of the more pessimistic Members in the Chamber this evening, I can say that many of my constituents are highly concerned about the issue, which was raised with me during the election campaign by a number of people.
	I am also delighted that the Opposition chose to debate climate change because, as we have heard, the environment is not an issue traditionally associated with the Conservative party. Regardless, for example, of whether the dash for gas had only a serendipitous effect on carbon emissions or whether it was deliberate, it has always been true that the Conservative party has been extremely effective at a local level in conserving the environment. Any campaign to preserve a local wood or green space tends to be packed with Conservative activists.
	The environment is not and never should be the exclusive territory of the left, and a striking feature of today's debate is the call for all parties to make this a priority. Clearly we will have significant distinctions on the way we address the issue, most notably on nuclear energy, but one thing that must unite us is that we cannot go on like this; something has to change and we must work together to drive the issue up the political agenda.
	I believe that Conservative and centre right parties have demonstrated that they have always had the knack for working with the grain of human nature and for achieving policy goals in a way that is in tune with how people think and live, rather than forcing top-down centralised plans on an unwilling public. We need that kind of inventiveness in this area as well.
	In line with other speakers, I should like to see the Government subjected to more control, scrutiny and accountability on reducing carbon emissions. By contrast, I should like to see consumers given more incentives and encouragement to reduce carbon emissions.
	At the heart of what the Opposition are arguing for this evening are institutional changes to deal with a key problem, in that effective measures to tackle climate change yield rewards only in the very long term, yet the pain caused by such changes and effective measures is immediate. The way the political system operates militates against effective action on climate change for precisely that reason.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) advocates the idea that, essentially, Government action on climate change that is effective should be recognised and rewarded and that Government failure on climate change should be exposed and punished, to build genuine accountability into the system. We have heard a number of ways in which this can be done, in particular the establishment of an independent body, which is crucial. I am surprised that so many Labour Members who spoke at length about the lack of progress and their concerns on climate change cannot support such an obviously positive goal.
	Driving energy issues up the agenda in every single Department of State is also crucial. There is no point in having an environmental policy that comes solely from DEFRA; we have to strengthen the hand of the environmental departments so that environmental issues are covered right across the Government, particularly transport and industry. We must encourage consumers to take action, bring consumers with us in tackling climate change, and encourage consumers to reduce their carbon emissions, in particular by focusing on energy efficiency.
	There is much more I would like to say but I am conscious that we are rapidly running out of time.

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) for her generosity in allowing time for me to speak. I also pay genuine tribute to the truly worthwhile initiative taken by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I hope that the Government will take that initiative seriously, not only in their response to the debate tonight, but in the months and weeks ahead. At best, it provides the opportunity for the Government—and opposition parties—to be more courageous in some of the more difficult decisions needed.
	Although we talk about how the public are beginning to understand better the imperative to tackle climate change, we are still a long way from getting the message across about the priority of taking effective action. We see that when oil prices rise and fuel protests are threatened. As political parties, we must get away from narrow party politicking and recognise the bigger goal of achieving real change.
	When I talk to climate experts at the University of East Anglia, they tell of their fear that we are already too late to take effective action, but that is no reason for not trying. I want the political parties to lead public opinion on the issue. It is difficult to establish a link in the public's mind between what they hear about global warming and the actual effects on their lives. We hear of extreme events, such as Boscastle a couple of years ago and the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, but there is no irrefutable proof that they were caused by global warming, although they probably were. However, we have examples in this country of real proof of the impact that global warming will have on us—the impact will of course be much greater in countries such as Bangladesh, where the potential loss of life is horrific—and evidence is building in my county of Norfolk of real potential damage. Experts say that sea levels could rise by 1 ft—with apologies for using the old currency—in the next 50 years, primarily because of global warming. Added to that, the Government are neglecting sea defences. For example, this year the Environment Agency will not be funded to replenish beaches in my constituency south of Sea Palling, but that is the point at which the sea can get into the broads.
	In 1953, 300 people lost their lives in the east of England, but 8,100 people drowned in Holland. At that time, global warming had not had an impact, but rises in the sea level of 1 ft and an increased incidence of extreme events, such as storm surges, could lead to a devastating impact on the broads area, causing loss of lives, homes and livelihoods. We are on the front line of the impact of global warming and it is therefore essential for the Government to address the issue of sea defences, so that we can prepare for the future, and essential for us all to tackle the imperative of climate change.

Mark Lazarowicz: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's particular constituency interests, but does he agree that a difficult choice will have to be made in some areas about the wisdom of building sea defences higher and higher? I make that point in a genuinely consensual spirit, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman may wish to reply theoretically, avoiding the implications for his constituency.

Norman Lamb: Of course I understand that difficult choices have to be made, but above all else we have to ensure that effective action is taken now to tackle what is happening.
	Finally, I wish to mention a worthwhile initiative by Greenpeace. Hon. Members have mentioned the horrendous inefficiency of the national power grid system. Greenpeace is advocating a much stronger focus on localised power generation, such as the initiatives in Braintree, Woking and other places. A move towards much more efficient power generation locally is one element of a new system of energy generation that will start to tackle this really serious problem.

Bill Wiggin: What an interesting debate we have had. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on his consensual approach. He was optimistic and, as always, highly intelligent, yet gentle in his approach. He talked clearly about the path to 2050 and about the steps that we shall need to take to reach the 60 per cent. reduction target. I was disappointed by the slightly cynical nature of the interventions he took, although my faith was restored by the honesty and integrity with which he responded to them.
	In her speech, the Secretary of State, was just a little too satisfied with the words of the Prime Minister. I hoped that she might have focused more on the results—what the Government have, or have not, achieved during the past eight years. It was clear from my right hon. Friend's answers to the Secretary of State what the body we had been talking about would do. I hope that she will think more carefully about his answers and the implications not only for the Government but for the whole planet. I agreed with her comment that we cannot lecture the other 189 countries about climate change; we must lead by example. I wish we were doing more to achieve that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) gave a wise and well-informed speech—prophetic, I suggest. I particularly liked his comment that the economy is part of the environment, not the other way around. That balance is key if we are to make the sort of progress that we have been discussing this afternoon.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made four interesting suggestions. I do not think that he is a heretic; he made some constructive comments and I hope they will be taken on board. He looks slightly horrified, but he and I have agreed many times in the past.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) talked about the international element of the problems we face, especially whether we shall have agreement by 2012. His speech was concerned, eloquent and measured. He talked about low-carbon technology and pointed out that making it cheaper was fundamental to any constructive progress in reducing the effects of climate change.
	I liked very much my hon. Friend's comments on energy efficiency: particularly important for a country that has only 2 per cent. of the problem is whether we can be the role model that we should be. If we are the fourth most powerful economy in the world, we are perfectly positioned to set an example. If we do not, we shall never be more than 2 per cent. of the solution. We must take this opportunity and use our role in the world to make a difference. I liked his suggestion about carbon intensity as a percentage of gross domestic product and I shall think carefully about that.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) made three points. He talked about the house-building programme, about the long-term agenda, stability, certainty and clarity that people need if they are to do the right thing and about how important it is that policies do not conflict. His examples could have taken the third point one step further. I believe that the Government were right when they talked about joined-up government, which fits in with what he was saying about the lack of conflict in policy, but we are not getting the joined-up government that I know Ministers want to deliver but are finding difficult.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) talked about scrutiny of the Government and said that the Government must be open and clear. She said that consumers need to be encouraged to do the right thing. As is typical of her, she dissected the problem clearly. She talked about how the time scale contributes to the difficulties that we face with short-term pain for long-term gain. Her speech was, if anything, far too short, which is typical of her very generous nature.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) talked about the consensus element that has been touched on today, the impact of global warming and his worries about the effect on his constituents.
	We have been all over the world with the debate. We have talked about the Government's global discussions, about the global solutions that we need to achieve and a great deal about what we can do to make an impact on the rest of the world. We could have talked a lot more about what we have done ourselves. When I start to think about what the world will be like in 2050—as I am sure that you do, Mr. Speaker—I realise that I shall be 84 by then. Depending on the Government crisis in pensions, I may well still be here but not yet Father of the House—one can never tell—but if we are still alive by then, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), and I will be grandparents, and when we have our grandchildren on our knee I am worried that we may be dealing with their questions about what we did to stop the climate changing. My concern is that he may have to answer that, although the Government set tough and ambitious targets, they failed to meet them.
	We have talked about climate change, but the Government have not got carbon emissions to decrease. In fact, they have increased. We were all promised joined-up government and that we would recycle 25 per cent. of household waste, but we are becoming worse than almost every other country in Europe. It is very worrying that such figures are coming out. We have talked about Britain topping the EU league for increasing carbon emissions from electricity and heat production. If we do not cut our carbon dioxide emissions, we are likely to fail the Kyoto targets. If Britain misses her Kyoto targets, it would be very damaging not only for our environment, but for our standing and place in the world.
	The climate change levy, which was discussed earlier, has proven a failure. It raises some £800 million a year, but it is far from clear where that money is spent. Only £40 million has been spent on developing solar energy systems, for example. In June, the Government announced that they would invest £25 million in carbon capture and storage schemes. The cost of creating carbon capture and storage models in the North sea could be as low as £40 million, so why cannot the Government add an extra £15 million from their £800 million to achieve that? The Norwegian company, Statoil, has been successfully using that method in the North sea for the past nine years. The technology is there; we have got to get on with using it.
	We have difficulties with transport, which accounts for 22 per cent. of Britain's greenhouse gas emissions. The EU biofuels directive set a target of substituting 2 per cent. of fuels used, by energy content, with biofuels by the end of this year. The Government have set Britain's target at just 0.3 per cent. In 2003, biofuels represented only about 0.05 per cent. of the total automotive fuel market.
	California is developing a hydrogen highway. Iceland estimates that it will power its whole infrastructure with hydrogen in 30 years. Britain could be doing so much better. Household waste is increasing by 3 per cent. a year. Germany diverts nearly four times as much and Denmark five times as much waste from landfill per person as Britain does.
	On the Government's success rate in implementing the Cabinet Office guidelines on environmental legislation, they have managed to get them right only 16 out of 85 times. Last year, just 34 out of 121 regulations complied with the Cabinet Office guideline of issuing advice 12 weeks before implementation—a success rate of 28 per cent.
	The Government can do a great deal. I believe that they want to do it, and they should take the opportunity of the consensus that has been offered. It is entirely constructive, and I am sure that, when the Secretary of State has had a good chance to think about it, she will see the benefits not only to the Government and our country, but to the whole planet.

Ben Bradshaw: This has been a remarkable and encouraging debate. Let me begin by paying tribute to the contributions from the Back Benches. We have had reminders from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and from the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) of some of the real impacts of climate change. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle referred to the regular and terrible flooding that he and his constituents have suffered, and we have heard about the rising sea levels and the coastal erosion in Norfolk and about the hurricane that has happened since we last debated the subject. Although it is right to say that one cannot detect in a single meteorological phenomenon the impacts of climate change, there is now no doubt that the warming of the oceans as the result of climate change is making such events more regular and violent. We heard good and timely reminders.
	We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), who made constructive recommendations and proposals as to what we might do to help to counter the problem.
	We also heard a second excellent contribution from the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd). Among other things, he talked about the importance of using market mechanisms to push the agenda forward. I wish that he could have spent some time at the conference of international business leaders from China and all round the world that took place in London this week and that he could have listened to those business leaders, including some from the UK, whose companies are aiming for carbon neutrality. An economic process is going on and people see real business and economic opportunities, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must harness them.
	The most remarkable thing about the debate, however, was the level of consensus. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for securing the debate. I do not think that it would have happened in the past, and I think that it is a tribute to the fact that he has moved this important issue to the centre of his own party's policy. I hope very much that he can keep it there.
	I am a natural consensualist, so I am instinctively attracted to the proposal that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made. The right hon. Gentleman was very generous in his praise of what the Prime Minister has achieved on the international scene, and praise is also due to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She has also played an extremely important role on the international scene, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, who I am afraid cannot be here to reply to the debate because he is conciliating as part of our presidency commitments on the bathing water directive in Brussels—lucky him.
	The right hon. Member for West Dorset was not quite so generous in his remarks about our domestic record. It is important to remind the House that we have the renewables obligation; the climate change levy, although he may disagree with it; the emissions trading scheme, which was UK led; the changes to company car tax; and the changes to the vehicle excise duty.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Bradshaw: I am terribly sorry, but I have only 10 minutes to reply to the debate.
	On the building regulations, we have managed to achieve a 40 per cent. improvement in efficiency in buildings in just three years, because of some of the changes that we have introduced. Hon. Members who raised the issue were right. We need to do more.
	We also have the climate change review that will address the very specific criticism that the right hon. Gentleman and others have had that we are not on track to meet our CO 2 targets. I hope that some of the suggestions that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House will help to contribute to that review and help us to get back on track to meet those targets.
	I welcome the conversion of the Conservative party to targets, but I remind it that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrat party included the 20 per cent. CO 2 reduction target by 2010 in their manifestos. The Labour party was the only party to do so. That is fine; I welcome the conversion. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is sincere in taking the issue seriously. My fear, however—I hope that I am wrong—is that he has not achieved a consensus in his own party. He may seek a consensus across parties, but the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said in an interview recently:
	"The fashionable media have decided that climate change is one of the biggest challenges to mankind. But they ignore the fact that the earth has lived through hotter times than today."
	I therefore ask whether the right hon. Member for West Dorset has a job in his own party to reach the consensus that he needs to accomplish before he tries to achieve a consensus on both sides of the House. We would feel easier about his admirable desire if he could achieve that first.
	The hon. Member for Lewes was also generous in his tributes to what the Government have achieved. I think that he would agree that our policies have a lot in common, although it is important to highlight a couple of issues on which we do not agree, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did in reply to his letter. We do not think that talking about imposing emissions reductions on developing countries, especially India and China, is a sensible negotiating position, so we can be honest in disagreeing with him about that. Additionally, advocating a specific proposal for the shape of a future climate change agreement after Kyoto would not be a sensible negotiating position at this stage, as my right hon. Friend said.
	Apart from the independent body, which my right hon. Friend talked about in her speech, the one thing on which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats seemed to be able to agree was the annual obligation or target—whatever one wants to call it. The problem with an annual obligation, apart from the fact that it is suggested by two parties that until recently did not want to commit even to an obligation by 2010, is that it would leave no room to take account of the effect of short-term fluctuations in the global economy or the price of certain fuels. For example, what would happen in the event of the situation that occurred over the past two years when more coal was burned because of the price of gas, which created a problem with our short-term CO 2 targets? The hon. Member for Lewes and the right hon. Member for West Dorset do not explain how an annual obligation would help us to cope with such situations.
	I am slightly confused about the consensus that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats envisage. I did not think that the hon. Member for Lewes was clear about whether he was advocating an agreement, or an exchange of views. If he was advocating an agreement, it would be incredibly difficult to achieve. For example, I look forward to the day when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be able to agree on the future of nuclear energy. If he was advocating an exchange of views, we can have that. We have been having such an exchange for the past three and a half hours and it has been an extremely interesting, instructive and educative experience.

Norman Baker: rose—

Ben Bradshaw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to clarify his position.

Norman Baker: I am happy to do so. I want an agreement, but I said that we should have a solid foundation on which we could agree, and perhaps even an additional couple of storeys, but that we could each have our individual structures above that—[Laughter.] No, this is serious. Let us maximise what we can agree on, rather than picking out differences.

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Member for West Dorset was slightly more candid when he acknowledged—I think—that he did not really expect us to accept his offer at least until he was ready to come up with proposals, after he was frank enough to admit that he did not actually have any proposals at this stage.
	Although I am a natural consensualist, I am slightly cautious of the prospect of trying to reach consensus while the Conservative party is in the throes of a leadership election, the outcome of which we do not know. We do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will still be in charge of its climate change policy after that election, although I hope that he will be for the reasons that I outlined earlier. I certainly hope that his man and wing of the party wins the election so that we might maintain the consensus that we have built over the past few weeks. The hon. Member for Lewes said that we needed to reach out in a fog, but I assumed that the fog to which he was referring was the Liberal Democrat policy review.
	It is not realistic for us to achieve the sort of consensus that the hon. Member for Lewes and the right hon. Member for West Dorset envisage until both the Liberal Democrat policy review and the Conservative leadership election are out of the way. At that time, we might be able to do so. The door is open for this great idea, so I hope that we will be able to make progress when both those issues are resolved.
	I take the offer at face value and think that it is an interesting and constructive idea. I welcome both it and the fact that the House is debating one of the most important issues that face mankind in such a constructive and consensual way. However, if the Opposition parties are serious about a consensus, they should take up the constructive suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and not press the motion to a vote.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House congratulates the UK Government on the unparalleled leadership it has shown in raising the issue of climate change up the international agenda; welcomes the outcomes of the G8 Summit in July in Gleneagles and the UK's achievements in establishing a new momentum in international discussion on climate change; further welcomes the Government's commitment to work towards agreement on the long-term goals and action needed to stabilise the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the UK's commitment to seek further international action through the EU Presidency, the first meeting of the G8 dialogue on 1st November and the Montreal meeting in December; commends the Labour Party for its continuing objective to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010; and welcomes any support for measures that will actually reduce UK emissions.

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his time today in a series of coal-related debates—not for nothing is he called the Energy Minister, given all his running around. I also pay tribute to other coal-mining MPs who this morning responded to the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) for a good one-and-a-half-hour debate on the future of the coal industry.
	The names Wyndham, Deep Navigation, Abernant, Garw Ffaldau, Marine, Merthyr Vale, Britannia and Six Bells are all ghosts from the very recent past in Wales—they are some of our most famous deep pits. For many people it is like reading the obituary column in the local paper and seeing the names of friends who have gone. Only one of all the deep mines in Wales is now left. That is to the credit of a singular group of people in Tower colliery who, against the odds—against the Government and the management of the day—defied advice and literally carved a success story out of the Welsh hills. I applaud my hon. Friend the Minister for announcing this morning the additional phase 2 funding of £832,000, which will go down very well in the constituency of Cynon Valley. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has campaigned long and hard on behalf of the Tower colliers and their families.
	What if the rumours of the death of deep mining in Wales and the UK are greatly exaggerated? As the Minister knows, the long list of defunct pits that I read out have a common feature in that they are also a list of the workable coal reserves in south Wales—250 million tonnes of potentially workable coal reserves. Add to that the current energy challenges faced in the UK, mix in the proven and still developing capabilities of clean coal technology, and all of a sudden we have the ingredients for a future for coal. The same ingredients could be mixed throughout the United Kingdom's coalfields. Wyndham-Western, Deep Navigation, Abernant, Garw-Ffaldau, Britannia, Six Bells—that is not an obituary. Those pits can be used to revitalise UK energy policy. High-quality coal reserves can help our energy needs and our energy security and help UK plc to develop a leading edge in clean-coal technology.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should support companies such as Babcock and Wilcox, which are at the leading edge of new technology for clean coal?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree entirely. I will deal with Babcock and other technologies shortly, because they point the way forward.
	In south Wales, 250 million tonnes of reserves were identified back in 1979. The rapid and brutal pit closure programme meant that only 20 million tonnes have been mined. Modern mining techniques and global energy changes make the reserves more viable and they could provide power for more than 50 years.

Mark Tami: Is it not testament to the lack of a proper energy policy in this country that we are discussing the subject only now? We should be leading the world, with many plants using the technology.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I empathise with my hon. Friend but I hope that, especially after this morning's debate and the Minister's comments this evening, we will be more optimistic about the way forward for UK Coal. I believe that the challenge exists and that the Government are rising to it. My hon. Friend the Minister will excuse me if I push a little harder.
	In his speech in Brighton, the Prime Minister talked about nuclear power being back on the agenda. The argument for coal is more clear-cut, compelling and categorical. If only the Prime Minister had asked me to help write his conference speech—I am still available for a small fee—I could have finessed it with a touch of black gold.
	It is said that surely nobody wants to continue mining nowadays. Yet modern mining methods, including improved ventilation underground, mean that the work and environment are greatly improved. That is essential if we are to avoid or minimise the legacy of respiratory disease and other occupational illnesses.

David Hamilton: Would that enable the Scottish coal industry, which is non-existent apart from open cast, to consider the possibility of drift mines? I agree wholeheartedly about the new technology but when we talk about UK Coal, we mean English coal and Welsh coal.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree. The feasibility of all the reserves needs to be considered without favour.

Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend mentioned Tower in Wales. Its existence is a credit to the mining industry. He also mentioned UK Coal, which is little more than a property company. Does he agree that, when the Government launch their new energy policy, based on opening drift mines in whatever part of Britain, it should be based on an alternative similar to Tower, or perhaps comparable to Network Rail, and that they should not simply hand out money to a property company to shut pits and develop the land?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree. That point was powerfully and repeatedly made this morning. There is a case for an alternative way forward that is not based on the existing UK Coal because of all its disadvantages.
	What about the ugly tips that have disfigured our valleys and hills? The land is recovering and regaining its natural beauty. Surely no one wants to recreate the industrial wasteland and the scars of industry. Yet, again, with modern mining technology of various types, one can return the waste underground. Advanced landscaping techniques mean that the impact on the environment is minimised and can even be better when the mines have reached the end of their life. The discharge pipes for methane gas are a characteristic feature of many coalfield areas. Yet now methane gas can be harnessed for electricity generation.
	"But, for goodness' sake", say some, "You can't have coal burning power stations and achieve our carbon emission targets. It's bonkers to pretend otherwise." To think in that way is to have slept through the advances in technology in recent years. As a former Energy Minister neatly put it:
	"Coal can be part of the environmental solution instead of part of the problem."

Jeff Ennis: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the early 1980s, this country led the world in clean coal technology, through the fluidised bed plant at Grimethorpe colliery power station in my constituency? That plant was funded by more than 20 countries, including America and Japan. Unfortunately, the facility was closed down by Mrs. Thatcher. Does he agree that this country continues to regret that decision to this day?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, and I am sure that all Members here will agree that we want to regain that lead in clean coal technology to take us forward through not only the next few years but the next few decades. The export potential is massive, but it will not happen without investment and prioritising clean coal and carbon abatement technology.
	We know that, by 2015, at least half the UK's coal-fired generation plants will close because they have failed to meet EU emission targets. These older technology plants generate 32 per cent. of our electricity needs and as much as 45 per cent. at peak times. We talk about nuclear power, but the closures are going to coincide with the decommissioning of the existing old nuclear power stations, which themselves provide one fifth of UK electricity. With the best will in the world, renewable energy and even a resurgence of modern nuclear power will not fill that energy gap. Clean coal technology, based on securely sourced UK coal, is not just desirable but essential if we are to meet our energy needs.
	Energy security is becoming a greater issue in the UK every day, especially as our reliance on overseas supplies grows. The Government's own figures show that 70 per cent. of the UK's energy needs will be supplied by gas by 2020, and that 90 per cent. of that will be imported. That will make the UK extremely vulnerable to disruption of supply and it is vital that we have an indigenous capacity for energy creation from a variety of sources, including renewables, clean coal technology and—well, who knows? I think nuclear power deserves a separate debate all of its own. Let us wait and see.

Edward Balls: Does my hon. Friend agree that short-termism is the biggest enemy of indigenous coal production? If we can adopt a long-term approach to energy policy, to security of supply, to carbon sink technology and to coal generation, we shall have a chance of at last attracting long-term investment in the production of indigenous coal.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I entirely agree. We need a portfolio approach and the ability to make long-term decisions, based on the fiscal measures that are in place not just for five years but for 10 or 20. The energy suppliers and generators—the people who will invest in this technology—need the security of knowing that they can make those long-term decisions.
	I am pleased that the DTI has recognised that clean coal and related technologies have a role to play, as have the Welsh Assembly Government. But the Minister must recognise the concern from the National Union of Mineworkers, Amicus, Tower and others that the investment in clean coal technology is less than it should be. There should be more. The USA has led the way in this regard, investing significantly in gasification technology and, to a lesser extent, carbon capture. China has undertaken retrofit programmes on several power plants and is experimenting with gasification. My argument to the Minster is that we have a golden opportunity to develop a UK lead in this market and to export our technology worldwide—I know that he realises this—but it could so easily be missed through under-investment.
	On 14 June 2005, the Minister said:
	"Reaching our ambitious target of cutting carbon emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050 means action now to support emerging technologies that will enable us to burn coal and gas more cleanly."
	He was absolutely right and we need to know the scale of that investment. Nick Otter, the director of technology and external affairs at Alstom Power welcomed the
	"willingness of the UK to take a portfolio approach to the reduction and management of carbon dioxide at the heart of climate change."
	Andrew Davies, economic development Minister in the Welsh Assembly Government, also recognises this potential in the "Energy Wales" consultation document. He notes that south Wales is a net importer of energy, which is remarkable in the light of my earlier comments on the reserves of good-quality coal in the south Wales coalfield. He said:
	"Security of Energy supply requires us to continue to ensure a diversity of fuel supplies which means pressing for the development of cleaner coal operations and the eventual carbon capture for the carbon dioxide emissions of fossil fuelled stations generally."
	In Wales, therefore, a review is under way. A coal technical advice note is to be developed for 2006, and there is a will to put in place a demonstration gasification project by 2010. Wales has a key strategic role to play.
	The Uskmouth power station in Newport already utilises flue gas desulphurisation—FGS—and is one of the cleanest plants of its size in the UK, and the necessary consents to fit FGS to Aberthaw have been obtained. Those retrofitted devices are a great improvement—they achieve carbon savings of 15 to 20 per cent.—but newer, purpose-built, cleaner plants must be the longer-term solution.

Jessica Morden: I recently visited the Uskmouth power station, which is in my constituency, and the company reiterated that they want to develop their use of clean coal technology. But as new technologies are often unproven, banks are unwilling to lend the money and take the risk with new projects. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that we should offer more support to industries to prove these technologies in the long run.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The point is well made: long-term support, and the clarity of that support years ahead, is vital.
	On other aspects of technology, one prime example is conversion or pre-combustion technologies such as gasification—turning coal into a gas or liquid that can be cleaned and used as fuel. That is the cleanest of all coal-based electric power technologies, with lower air emissions, solid wastes and waste water. Moreover, it has far higher efficiency, using less coal to produce the same amount of energy, thereby leading to lower CO 2 production. Clearly, that is the way forward.
	Concerns have been expressed about the disposal of carbon, yet the technique of carbon capture linked to sequestration appears to have immense potential, which is why BP and its partners started injecting CO 2 last year into the In Salah gas fields in Algeria. The technology exists. In the US, oil producers are paying electricity producers for their CO 2 for that very reason, because it helps them pump out more oil from their oilfields. It is a win-win situation, and BP estimates that reservoirs in the North sea have the capacity to store more than 60 years of the CO 2 produced by all the power stations in Europe.
	The Minister will know that one key aspect affecting viability, on which a couple of interventions have touched, is long-term planning, and availability of credits under the EU emissions trading scheme is critical to that. That was discussed in the earlier debates today. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that, and on the much-anticipated report on carbon capture and storage by the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
	When the men and women of Tower colliery in south Wales, and their wives and families, took their futures into their own hands and made that pit work, they had to fight against the management, the Government, and against the odds. They were proved right then. They are equally right now. There is a future for coal in Wales and the UK, a future based on economically viable mining, energy security and cutting-edge clean coal technology.
	Cwm, Coedely, Brynlliw-Morlais, Blaenant, Treforgan, Penallta, Taff Merthyr, Mardy, Lady Windsor—coal has a great past, but also a great future. It is for us and the Minister, with the support of the coalfield MPs, to carve out that future together.

Malcolm Wicks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on securing this debate tonight. It is encouraging to have so many hon. Friends behind me, but also slightly scary. It might be an accident of parliamentary timetabling that we have had three debates on energy—two in Westminster Hall and one in the Chamber—as well as the climate change debate today. It is not entirely a coincidence, however, that there is a growing interest in energy policy and futures in the United Kingdom. I note that although the Labour Benches are packed, the new alliance on climate change between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is clearly taking place elsewhere. Any suggestion, moreover, that the nationalists have an interest in this issue is also a point that we might want to debate.
	My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about his concern at the decline of the coal industry in south Wales, and he spoke enthusiastically about the potential impact of new technologies on the future prospects of the coal industry. I want first to address his concern about the present and immediate future of the UK coal industry, and then to look further ahead to the exciting potential role that new technologies can play in making coal a part of a low carbon future.
	Currently, there are three deep mines in south Wales. My hon. Friend spoke about the Tower colliery, which employs 375 people and produces some 600,000 tonnes of coal per year. I hope to visit that colliery next week. Work is in progress to re-access viable reserves at Energybuild's Aberpergwm colliery. If this project is successful, the mine should employ some 178 people and produce about 300,000 tonnes of coal per year by 2008. There is also one surviving micro-mine, which is a two-man operation.
	Both Tower and Aberpergwm have benefited from coal investment aid. Tower was awarded £2.22 million in application period 1, and as my hon. Friend noted, I announced today that it has been awarded a further £842,000 in application period 2, making a total of more than £3 million. That is a significant sum, and Aberpergwm has also been awarded a total of £3.5 million. These awards will help both mines to meet the cost of investing in projects that are supposed to be completed by the end of next March. However, if progress is slower than expected, payments will continue until the award is exhausted.
	The aim of coal investment aid has been to support investment projects in order to maintain access to viable reserves, and to protect mining employment to 2008. Regrettably, at that point Tower is expected to reach the end of its working life, but we hope that the new mining project will progress according to plan. I am advised that it should continue to produce coal and to contribute to local energy needs until at least 2015.
	In addition to these deep mines, south Wales currently has seven working surface mines. They employ some 390 people and produced 1.6 million tonnes of coal in 2004. Continuing supplies of coal from both deep and surface mines will be essential in maintaining security of energy supply in south Wales for the foreseeable future. They are particularly important to Aberthaw power station, which remains a vital source of electricity for local domestic and industrial consumers.
	My hon. Friend listed a number of locations where coal has been worked in the past, and which may still hold viable reserves, whether for deep or surface mining. Recent changes in the international coal market may help to make them more commercially attractive to potential operators, and it would be good to hear of un-worked reserves being brought into production. For that to happen, they would of course need to meet the terms of planning legislation provisions, in order to ensure that the potential environmental impact of coal working can be managed, or offset, to meet the reasonable concerns of local communities.
	I turn now to the future. I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the opportunities that clean coal technologies could provide in respect of the UK's energy mix. Of course, this issue is of wider international note. At the recent EU-China summit, an announcement was made about clean coal technology in China. As colleagues know, given the number of coal stations that will be built in the years to come, the role of clean coal technology in China will be crucial if our international environmental climate change objectives are to stand any chance of being met successfully.
	It is clear that if these technologies can become competitive in the UK in the next 10 to 15 years, they can contribute successfully to our energy White Paper target of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050. But of course, we must recognise that even if we successfully develop cleaner coal technologies, it does not necessarily follow that we will use British coal exclusively. Today, coal is an internationally traded commodity, and good quality, competitively priced coal is available from abroad. Thus clean coal technologies are not necessarily the saviour of the British, or indeed the Welsh, coal industry, although I would hope that they would be a significant factor in helping our industry. The key is that British coals need to compete effectively with other sources from abroad.
	That said, the key challenge is to develop the technology to deal with the fact that at the moment coal is about twice as polluting as natural gas. How should we go about that? While it should be industry rather than the Government that identifies and brings the most appropriate technologies to market, we also recognise that the Government have an active role to play to stimulate that. That is why I announced back in June the publication of our carbon abatement technology strategy for fossil fuel use. As my hon. Friend mentioned, I also announced a package of some £40 million in capital grants for demonstration projects covering carbon abatement technologies, hydrogen and fuel cells. About £25 million of that has been specifically allocated to demonstrating carbon abatement technologies.
	Officials in the Department are currently working up this scheme and we expect to be able to announce more details early next year. In the meanwhile, they are taking forward the other activities identified in the carbon abatement technology strategy, such as the development of a technology road map so that we can focus on those technologies that we need to develop for coal and other hydrocarbons to have a sustainable future.
	It is already clear that a number of technologies can be developed to reduce carbon emissions. The most radical solution is carbon dioxide capture and storage, which can reduce emissions by about 85 per cent. For it to be commercially viable, the impact of capture on plant efficiency has to be reduced—as do the costs—we estimate that it will be some 10 to 15 years before we reach the point at which they will be commercially viable. That is why we are placing short-term emphasis on improving the efficiency of plant.
	As well as providing development and demonstration funding, we are also tackling the other barriers blocking the route to market for these technologies. The Chancellor recognised in his Budget statement that CO 2 capture and storage has the potential to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels. As part of the climate change programme review, we are investigating what can be done further to incentivise the take-up of those technologies. We are also working with our European partners on how to enable CCS to qualify for carbon credits under the emissions trading scheme. All those activities and many more form a work programme that was set out in the carbon abatement technologies strategy—work that I expect to lead to an environment that will enable the technology to become a reality.
	In the North sea, colleagues will note the BP project in the Miller oil field where it is planned to return carbon dioxide back to the North sea fields, enabling more oil to be produced. In addition, there is the BP work in the Salah gas field in Algeria. Around the world, there are bits of technology and good practice that we can draw on. We are very supportive of all those projects, as their success will provide encouragement for similar projects and lay the foundation for the take-up of new, cleaner fossil technologies.
	We have had debates today on coal and energy policy. On a wider note, the House will know that we will shortly be announcing the details of our energy review, as highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech to the Labour party conference in Brighton. My right hon. Friend has said that he wants energy policy recommendations to be made by next year. That shows his emphasis on energy policy, and the urgency that he attaches to a range of issues to do with climate change, geopolitical developments, energy supply and other matters.
	In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced a review of fiscal measures relating to climate change, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also initiated a climate change review that will report by the end of the year. That shows that we have in place—or will have in place very soon—the necessary analysis and research that will enable us to think through a variety of difficult issues. That will help us to fulfil our aim of relating our concerns about the planet and climate change—surely the ultimate public good—to our concerns about energy supply, and to the social policy aspects of matters such as fuel poverty.
	Within that review process, we must of course look at the future of coal. Therefore, the House will have every opportunity to debate issues that are vital to the people of Wales, Scotland and England, and to the future of energy policy in the UK.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock.